Eliminating Redundant concepts in ARchiMate

Instead of trying to get additional concepts added to ArchiMate, lets talk about what is not needed.

1. Requirement/Constraint. A “constraint” is just a “requirement” that something not be done. Semantically, the two concepts are identical, so we can get rid of “constraint”.
2. Role/Stakeholder. A “role” is a specific set of behaviour. Because of that behaviour, the role has a set of interests. A “stakeholder” is just a role having no behaviour but still having interests. All roles are stakeholders, so “role” is the specialisation of “stakeholder”; that said, it is probably more accessible for people to think in terms of roles so we can get rid of “stakeholder”
3. Value/Outcome/Goal Human institutions exist to produce “value” or valued results, or valued things. A “goal” is the aspirational value that is being sought and the “outcome” is the actual result. The differentiation between the latter is unnecessary, as “Outcome” is just a status of the “goal”, (was it achieved or not) and then, arguable “outcome/Goal” is redundant as we can focus on the “value” (Note that value is measured by the recipient or intended recipient against requirements, which are classified as either needs or desires
4. Resource/Artefact As a “resource” is an asset that is owned or controlled …, and an “artefact” is a special type of “resource”, the latter is redundant
5. Equipment/Facility. As “equipment” can store material, a “facility” is a special case of “equipment”. Everything that “Equipment” does can be assigned to a facility.
6. Node/Device/Equipment. A “node” is just “equipment” with a defined set of features; the same applies to a “device”. Both are just IT equipment with specific patterns of features – the same is true for” Software systems”. We are just used to looking at this composite equipment as a single thing, but with hypervisors, we are just playing around with the features of the class of equipment. since there is there is now nothing physical in the technology layer, and equipment and resources are sitting off in the physical world by themselves, these two concepts are sitting off by themselves and can be folded into the technology layer Eliminating the differentiation between the equipment and technology layers simplifies the pattern. That said, if this makes you uncomfortable, you can always keep the “IT device” and “equipment separate, and create a new layer that supports equipment and resource; with “Equipment Service” “Equipment Process” Equipment Functions”, etc. … and with the evolution of equipment and expansions of architecture to recognised it encompasses not just it but the social-cultural – socio-technical system that it is and the advent of more intelligent equipment that is what I would advocate,