tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7943760374039500574.post4633569110915762795..comments2018-12-24T15:56:16.481+11:00Comments on Enterprise Architecture in ANZ: UML is not a language suited to most aspects of EAUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7943760374039500574.post-51680224085745527272007-08-24T17:33:00.000+10:002007-08-24T17:33:00.000+10:00Agree with you about the limitations of UML. It's ...Agree with you about the limitations of UML. It's a design language, much the same as those for wiring-schematics and air-conditioning layouts in physical buildings - and you generally wouldn't show those to business clients, either.<BR/>On use-cases, sad memories at one recent client of the lead business-analyst (for a team of 30+) who insisted that the use-cases <I>were</I> the requirements. No surprise, then, that the project was already a year late and $20M+ over budget...<BR/>I've hit similar UML-like issues with BPMN - supposedly the UML of process-modelling. Real problem is that it's not only too abstract for business-types, it's way too focussed on ICT: for a start, there's no way to track physical objects, and no distinction between manual and IT-based processes. The role-based modelling pushed by <A HREF="http://www.holocentric.com/" REL="nofollow">Holocentric</A> is easier for business folks, but has other problems, particularly at the process-redesign stage. Troux's <A HREF="http://forum.dataforeningen.no/attachment.php?attachmentid=858" REL="nofollow">MEAF </A> [pdf] would probably be better than either UML or role-based modelling, but I haven't yet had enough experience there to know. Other suggestions on this, perhaps?Tom Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12472133382563961875noreply@blogger.com