Archive for the ‘Alignment’ Category

Focus: MDA & UML

November 9, 2016


UML (Unified Modeling Language) and MDA (Model Driven Architecture) epitomize the lack of focus and consistency of the OMG’s strategy. As it’s safe to assume that there can be no architectures without models, MDA and UML arguably bring sensible (if not perfect) schemes without significant competition.


Unified language for Business and System Modeling (Marcel Broodthaers)


Unfortunately, not much has been made to play on their obvious complementarity and to exploit their synergies.

MDA & the Nature of Models

Model driven architecture (MDA) can be seen as the main (only ?) documented example of model based systems engineering. Its taxonomy organizes models within three layers:

  • Computation independent models (CIMs) describe organization and business processes independently of the role played by supporting systems.
  • Platform independent models (PIMs) describe the functionalities supported by systems independently of their implementation.
  • Platform specific models (PSMs) describe systems components depending on implementation platforms.

Engineering can then be managed along architecture layers (a), or carried out as a whole for each application (b).


Managing changes at architecture (a) or application (b) level.

It’s important to note that the MDA framework is completely neutral with regard to methods: engineering processes can be organized as phased activities (procedural), iterations (agile), or artifacts transformation (declarative).

Logic & The Matter of Models

Whatever the idiosyncrasies and fuzziness of business concerns and contexts, at the end of the day requirements will have to be coerced into the strict logic of computer systems. That may be a challenging task to be carried out directly, but less so if upheld by models.

As it happens, a fact all too often ignored, models come with sound logical foundations that can be used to formalize the mapping of requirements into specifications; schematically, models are to be set in two formal categories:

  • Descriptive (aka extensional) ones try to classify actual objects, events, and processes into categories.
  • Prescriptive (aka intensional) ones specify what is expected of systems components and how to develop them.
The logical basis of models

The logical basis of models

Interestingly, that distinction provides a formal justification to the one between analysis and design models, the former for the consolidation of requirements across business domains and enterprise organization, the latter for systems and software designs. Such logical foundations could help to manage the mapping of business processes and systems architectures.

UML & the Anatomy of Models

Except scientific computation, there is no reason to assume a-priori congruence between the description of business objects and processes and the specification of the software components. As a corollary, their respective structures and features are better to be dealt with separately.

But that’s not the case at architecture level, where domains and identities have to be managed continuously and consistency on the two sides of the business/system divide. At this level (aka enterprise architecture), responsibilities and identification and communication mechanisms must be defined uniformly.

Compared to MDA set at architecture level, UML describes the corresponding artifacts for business, systems, and platform layers. Regardless of the confusing terminology (layers or levels), that puts MDA and UML along orthogonal dimensions: the former (layers) deals with the nature of contents, the latter (levels) with their structures and features.

MDA is only concerned with architectures, UML describe the structure of architecture components.

MDA is only concerned with architectures, UML describe the structure of architecture components.

Using the same unified modeling language across business, systems, and platform layers is to clearly and directly enhance transparency and traceability; but the full extent of MDA/UML cross-benefits is to appear when models logic is taken into account.

Models & Systems Evolution

As illustrated by the increasing number of systemic crashes, systems obsolescence is no longer a matter of long-term planning but of operational continuity: change has become the rule and as far as complex and perennial systems are concerned, architectures are to evolve while supporting their functional duties seamlessly. If that is to be achieved, modularity and a degree of consistency are necessary between the nature of changes and their engineering. That’s where MDA is to help.

As pointed to above, modularity is best achieved with regard to level (architecture, element) and models contents (business, systems, platforms).

At architecture level, changes in domains, identification, and categories must be aligned between descriptive (enterprise) and prescriptive (systems) models. That will be best achieved with UML models across all MDA layers.

Using UML and MDA helps to align descriptive and prescriptive models at architecture level.

Using UML and MDA helps to align descriptive and prescriptive models at architecture level.

The constraints of continuity and consistency can be somewhat eased at element level: if descriptive (business) and prescriptive (systems) models of structures and features are to be consistent, they are not necessarily congruent. On component (prescriptive/design) side, UML and object-oriented design (OOD) are to keep them encapsulated. As for the business (descriptive/analysis) side, since structures and features can be modeled separately (and OOD not necessarily the best option), any language (UML, BPMN, DSL,etc.) can be used. In between, the structure (aka signature) of messages passed at architecture level is to be specified depending on communication framework.

Considering the new challenges brought about by the comprehensive interoperability of heterogeneous systems, the OMG should reassess the full range of latent possibilities to be found in its engineering portfolio.

Further Reading

Agile Architectures: Versatility meets Plasticity

June 22, 2015


At enterprise level agility can be understood as a mix of versatility and plasticity, the former an attribute of function, the latter of form:

  • Versatility: enterprise ability to perform different activities in changing environments without having to change its architectures.
  • Plasticity: enterprise ability to change its architectures without affecting its performances.
Plasticity is for form, versatility for function

Agility: Forms & Performances (P. Pénicaud)

Combining versatility and plasticity requires a comprehensive and consistent view of assets (architectures) and modus operandi (processes) organized with regard to change. And that can be achieved with model based systems engineering (MBSE).

MBSE & Change

Agility is all about change, and if enterprise governance is not to be thrown aside decision-making has to be supported by knowledgeable descriptions of enterprise objectives, assets, and organization.

If change management is to be the primary objective, targets must be classified along two main distinctions:

  • Actual (business context and organization) or symbolic (information systems).
  • Objects (business entities or system surrogates) or activities (business processes or logic).

Comprehensive and consistent descriptions of actual and symbolic assets (architectures) and modus operandi (processes) with regard to change management.

The two axis determine four settings supporting transparency and traceability:

  • Dependencies between operational and structural elements.
  • Dependencies between actual assets and processes and their symbolic representation as systems surrogates.

Versatility and plasticity will be obtained by managing changes and alignments between settings.

Changes & Alignments

Looking for versatility, changes in users’ requirements must be rapidly taken into account by applications (changes from actual to symbolic).

Looking for plasticity, changes in business objectives are meant to be supported by enterprise capabilities (changes from operational to structural).

The challenge is to ensure that both threads can be weaved together into business functions and realized by services (assuming a service oriented architecture).

With the benefits of MBSE, that could be carried out through a threefold alignment:

  • At users level the objective is to ensure that applications are consistent with business logic and provide the expected quality of service. That is what requirements traceability is meant to achieve.
  • At system level the objective is to ensure that business functions and features can be directly mapped to systems functionalities. That is what services oriented architectures (SOA) are  meant to achieve.
  • At enterprise level the objective is to ensure that the enterprise capabilities are congruent with its business objectives, i.e that they support its business processes through an effective use of assets. That is what maturity and capability models are meant to achieve.

Versatility comes from users’ requirements, plasticity from architectures capabilities.

That would make agility a concrete endeavor across enterprise, from business users and applications to business processes and architectures capabilities.

Further Reading

Feasibility & Capabilities

May 2, 2015


As far as systems engineering is concerned, the aim of a feasibility study is to verify that a business solution can be supported by a system architecture (requirements feasibility) subject to some agreed technical and budgetary constraints (engineering feasibility).

(A. Magnaldo)

Project Rain Check  (A. Magnaldo)

Where to Begin

A feasibility study is based on the implicit assumption of slack architecture capabilities. But since capabilities are set with regard to several dimensions, architectures boundaries cannot be taken for granted and decisions may even entail some arbitrage between business requirements and engineering constraints.

Using the well-known distinction between roles (who), activities (how), locations (where), control (when), and contents (what), feasibility should be considered for supporting functionalities (between business processes and systems) and implementation (between functionalities and platforms):


Feasibility with regard to Systems and Platforms

Depending on priorities, feasibility considerations could look from three perspectives:

  • Focusing on system functionalities (e.g with use cases) implies that system boundaries are already identified and that the business logic will be defined along with users’ interfaces.
  • Starting with business requirements puts business domains and logic on the driving seat, making room for variations in system functionalities and boundaries .
  • Operational requirements (physical environments, events, and processes execution) put the emphasis on a mix of business processes and quality of service, thus making software functionalities a dependent variable.

In any case a distinction should be made between requirements and engineering feasibility, the former set with regard to architecture capabilities, the latter with regard to development resources and budget constraints.

Requirements Feasibility & Architecture Capabilities

Functional capabilities are defined at system boundaries and if all feasibility options are to be properly explored, architectures capabilities must be understood as a trade-off between the five intrinsic factors e.g:

  • Security (entry points) and confidentiality (domains).
  • Compliance with regulatory constraints (domains) and flexibility (activities).
  • Reliability (processes) and interoperability (locations).

Feasible options must be set within the Capabilities Pentagon

Feasible options could then be figured out by points set within the capabilities pentagon. Given metrics on functional requirements, their feasibility under the non functional constraints could be assessed with regard to cross capabilities. And since the same five core capabilities can be consistently defined across enterprise, systems, and platforms layers, requirements feasibility could be assessed without prejudging architecture decisions.

Business Requirements & Architecture Capabilities

One step further, the feasibility of business and operational objectives (the “Why” of the Zachman framework) can be more easily assessed if set on the outer range and mapped to architecture capabilities.


Business Requirements and Architecture Capabilities

Engineering Feasibility & ROI

Finally, the feasibility of business and functional requirements under the constraints set by non functional requirements has to be translated in terms of ROI, and for that purpose the business value has to be compared to the cost of engineering the solution given the resources (people and tools), technical requirements, and budgetary constraints.

Architecture Capabilities for Processes, with deontic (basic) and alethic (dashed) dependencies.

ROI assessment mapping business value against functionalities, engineering outlays, and operational costs.

That where the transparency and traceability of capabilities across layers may be especially useful when alternatives and priorities are to be considered mixing functionalities, engineering outlays, and operational costs.

Further Reading

Business Processes & Use Cases

March 19, 2015


As can be understood from their theoretical basis (Pi-Calculus, Petri Nets, or State Machines), processes are meant to describe the concurrent execution of activities. Assuming that large enterprises have to keep a level of indirection between operations and business logic, it ensues that activities and business logic should be defined independently of the way they are executed by business processes.

Communication Semantics vs Contexts & Contents (G. Winograd)

Communication Semantics vs Contexts & Contents (G. Winogrand)

For that purpose two basic modeling approaches are available:  BPM (Business Process Modeling) takes the business perspective, UML (Unified Modeling Language) takes the engineering one. Yet, each falls short with regard to a pivotal conceptual distinctions: BPM lumps together process execution and business logic, and UML makes no difference between business and software process execution. One way out of the difficulty would be to single out communications between agents (humans or systems), and specify interactions independently of their contents and channels.


Business Process: Communication + Business Logic

That could be achieved if communication semantics were defined independently of domain-specific languages (for information contents) and technical architecture (for communication channels). As it happens, and not by chance, the outcome would neatly coincide with use cases.

Linguistics & Computers Parlance

Business and functional requirements (see Requirements taxonomy) can be expressed with formal or natural languages. Requirements expressed with formal languages, domain-specific or generic, can be directly translated into some executable specifications. But when natural languages are used to describe what business expects from systems, requirements often require some elicitation.

When that challenge is put into a linguistic perspective, two school of thought can be considered, computational or functional.

The former approach is epitomized by Chomsky’s Generative Grammar and its claim that all languages, natural or otherwise, share an innate universal grammar (UG) supporting syntactic processing independently of their meanings. Nowadays, and notwithstanding its initial favor, that “computer friendly” paradigm hasn’t kept much track in general linguistics.

Alternatively, the functionalist school of thought considers linguistics as a general cognitive capability deprived of any autonomy. Along that reasoning there is no way to separate domain-specific semantics from linguistic constructs, which means that requirements complexities, linguistic or business specific, have to be dealt with as a lump, with or without the help of knowledgeable machines.

In between, a third approach has emerged that considers language as a functional system uniquely dedicated to communication and the mapping of meanings to symbolic representations. On that basis it should be possible to separate the communication apparatus (functional semantics) from the complexities of business (knowledge representation).

Processes Execution & Action Languages

Assuming the primary objective of business processes is to manage the concurrent execution of activities, their modeling should be driven by events and their consequences for interactions between business and systems. Unfortunately, that approach is not explicitly supported by BPM or UML.

Contrary to the “simplex” mapping of business information into corresponding data models (e.g using Relational Theory), models of business and systems processes (e.g Petri Nets or State Machines) have to be set in a “duplex” configuration as they are meant to operate simultaneously. Neither BPM nor UML are well equipped to deal with the task:

  • The BPM perspective is governed by business logic independently of interactions with systems.
  • Executable UML approaches are centered on software processes execution, and their extensions to action semantics deal essentially on class instances, features value, and objects states.

Such shortcomings are of no serious consequences for stand-alone applications, i.e when what happens at architecture level can be ignored; but overlooking the distinction between the respective semantics of business and software processes execution may critically hamper the usefulness, and even the validity, of models pertaining to represent distributed interactions between users and systems. Communication semantics may help to deal with the difficulty by providing relevant stereotypes and patterns.

Business Process Models

While business process models can (and should) also be used to feed software engineering processes, their primary purpose is to define how concurrent business operations are to be executed. As far as systems engineering is concerned, that will tally with three basic steps:

  1. Dock process interactions (aka sessions) to their business context: references to agents, business objects and time-frames.
  2. Specify interactions: references to context, roles, events, messages, and time related constraints.
  3. Specify information: structures, features, and rules.
Communication with systems: dock to context (1), interactions (2), information (3).

Communication with systems: dock to context (1), interactions (2), information (3).

Although modeling languages and tools usually support those tasks, the distinctions remain implicit, leaving users with the choice of semantics. In the absence of explicit guidelines confusion may ensue, e.g between business rules and their use by applications (BPM), or between business and system events (UML). Hence the benefits of introducing functional primitives dedicated to the description of interactions.

Such functional semantics can be illustrated by the well known CRUD primitives for the creation, reading, updating and deletion of objects, a similar approach being also applied to the design of domain specific patterns or primitives supported by functional frameworks. While thick on the ground, most of the corresponding communication frameworks deal with specific domains or technical protocols without factoring out what pertains to communication semantics independently of information contents or technical channels.

Communication semantics should be independent of business specific contents and systems architectures.

Communication semantics should be independent of business specific contents and systems architectures.

But that distinction could be especially productive when applied to business processes as it would be possible to fully separate the semantics of communications between agents and supporting systems on one hand, and the business logic used to process business flows on the other hand.

 Communication vs Action Semantics

Languages have developed to serve two different purposes: first as a means to communicate (a capability shared between humans and many primates), and then as a means to represent and process information (a capability specific to humans). Taking a leaf from functional approaches to linguistics, it may be possible to characterize messages with regard to action semantics, more precisely associated activity and attendant changes:

  • No change: messages relating to passive (objects) or active  (performed activity) states.
  • Change: messages relating to achievement (no activity) or accomplishment (attendant on performed activity).

Basic action semantics for interactions between users (BPM) and systems (UML)

Communication semantics can then be fully rounded off by adding changes in agents’ expectations to the ones in the states of objects and activities, all neatly modeled with state machines.

Communication semantics: changes in expectations, objects, and activities.

It must also be noted that factoring out the modeling of agents’ expectations with regard to communications is in line with the principles of service oriented architectures (SOA).

Additionally, transitions would have to be characterized by:

  • Time-frame: single or different.
  • Address space : single or different.
  • Mode: information, request for information, or request for action.

Organizing business processes along those principles, would enable the alignment of BPMs with their UML counterpart.

Use Cases as Bridges between BPM & UML

Use cases can be seen as the default entry point for UML modeling, and as such they should provide a bridge from business process models. That can be achieved by if use cases are understood as a combination of interactions and activities, the former obtained from communications as defined above, the latter from business logic.

Use Cases are best understood as a combination of interactions and business logic

Use Cases are best understood as a combination of interactions and business logic

One step further, the distinction between communication semantics and business contents could be used to align models respectively to systems and software architectures:

Last but not least, the consolidation of models contents at architecture level would be congruent with modeling languages, BPM and UML.

Further Reading

External Links

Alignment: from Empathy to Abstraction

October 4, 2014


Empathy is commonly defined as the ability to directly share another person’s state of mind: feelings, emotions, understandings, etc. Such concrete aptitude would clearly help business analysts trying to capture users’ requirements; and on a broader perspective it could even contribute to enterprise capability to foretell trends from actual changes in business environment.

vvvvvv (Picasso)

Perceptions and Abstractions (Picasso)

Analysis goes in the opposite direction as it extracts abstract descriptions from concrete requirements, singling out a subset of features to be shared while foregoing the rest. The same process of abstraction being carried out for enterprise business and organisation on one hand,  systems and software architectures on the other hand.

That dual perspective can be used to define alignment with regard to the level under consideration: users, systems, or enterprise.

Requirements & Architectures

Requirements capture can be seen as a transition from spoken to written language, its objective being to write down what users tell about what they are doing or what they want to do. For that purpose analysts are presented with two basic policies: they can anchor requirements around already known business objects or processes, or they can stick to users’ stories, identify new structuring entities, and organize requirements alongside. In any case, and except for standalone applications, the engineering  process is to be carried out along two paths:

  • One concrete for the development of applications, the objective being to meet users’ requirements with regard to business logic and quality of service.
  • The other abstract for requirements analysis, the objective being to identify new business functions and features and consolidate them with those already supporting current business processes.

Those paths are set in orthogonal dimensions as concrete paths connect users’ activities to applications, and abstractions can only be defined between requirements levels.

Concrete (brown) and Abstract (blue) paths of requirements engineering

Concrete (brown) and Abstract (blue) paths of requirements engineering

As business analysts stand at the crossroad, they have to combine empathy when listening to users concerns and expectations, and abstraction when mapping users requirements to systems functionalities and enterprise business processes.

Architectures & Alignments

As it happens, the same reasoning can be extended to the whole of engineering process, with analysis carried out to navigate between abstraction levels of architectures and requirements, and design used for the realization of each requirements level into its corresponding architecture level:

  • Users’ stories (or more precisely corresponding uses cases) are realized by applications.
  • Business functions and features are realized by services (assuming a service oriented architecture), which are meant to be an abstraction of applications.
  • Business processes are realized by enterprise capabilities, which can be seen as an abstraction of services.
How requirements are realized by design at each architecture level

How requirements are realized by design at each architecture level

That matrix can be used to define three types of alignment:

  • At users level the objective is to ensure that applications are consistent with business logic and provide the expected quality of service. That is what requirements traceability is meant to achieve.
  • At system level the objective is to ensure that business functions and features can be directly mapped to systems functionalities. That is what services oriented architectures (SOA) are  meant to achieve.
  • At enterprise level the objective is to ensure that the enterprise capabilities are congruent with its business objectives, i.e that they support its business processes through an effective use of assets. That is what maturity and capability models are meant to achieve.

That makes alignment a concrete endeavor whatever the architecture layer, i.e not only for users and applications, but also for functions and capabilities.

Enterprise Fourth Dimension

Enterprise Architectures can be fully described as a cross between layers (platforms, systems, organization) and processes (business, engineering, operations). But the validity and usefulness of such outlook is contingent on homogeneous and stable semantics:

  • Homogeneous: some conceptual consensus can be sustained across business units.
  • Stable: some continuity and consistency can be achieved for the mapping between business objectives and targeted environments.

Meeting those conditions may become problematic with the growing part played by services and the crumbling of fences between enterprises and their business environment. In that case alignment will have to rely on a fourth conceptual dimension.

Further Readings

Alignment for Dummies

September 15, 2014


The emergence of Enterprise Architecture as a discipline of its own has put the light on the necessary distinction between actual (aka business) and software (aka system) realms. Yet, despite a profusion of definitions for layers, tiers, levels, views, and other modeling perspectives, what should be a constitutive premise of system engineering remains largely ignored, namely: business and systems concerns are worlds apart and bridging the gap is the main challenge of architects and analysts, whatever their preserve.

(J. Baldessari)

Alignment with Dummies (J. Baldessari)

The consequences of that neglect appear clearly when enterprise architects consider the alignment of systems architectures and capabilities on one hand, with enterprise organization and business processes on the other hand. Looking into the grey zone in between, some approaches will line up models according to their structure, assuming the same semantics on both sides of the divide; others will climb up the abstraction ladder until everything will look alike. Not surprisingly, with the core interrogation (i.e “what is to be aligned ?”) removed from the equation, models will be turned into dummies enabling alignment to be carried out by simple pattern matching.

Models & Views

The abundance of definitions for layers, tiers or levels often masks two different understandings of models:

  • When models are understood as symbolic descriptions of sets of instances, each layer targets a different context with a different concern. That’s the basis of the Model Driven Architecture (MDA) and its distinction between Computation Independent Models (CIMs), Platform Independent Models (PIMs), and Platform Specific Models (PSMs)
  • When models are understood as symbolic descriptions built from different perspectives, all layers targets the same context, each with a different concern. Along that understanding each view is associated to a specific aspect or level of abstraction: processes view, functional view, conceptual view, technical view, etc.

As it happens, many alignment schemes use, implicitly or explicitly, the second understanding without clarifying the underlying assumptions regarding the backbone of artifacts. That neglect is unfortunate because, to be of any significance, views will have to be aligned with regard to those artifacts.

What is to be aligned

Whatever the labels and understandings, alignment is meant to deal with two main problems: how business processes are supported by systems functionalities, and how those functionalities are to be implemented. Given that the latter can be fully dealt with at system level, the focus can be put on the alignment of business processes and functional architectures.

A naive solution could be to assume services on both processes and systems sides. Yet, the apparent symmetry covers a tautology: while aiming for services oriented architectures on the systems side would be legitimate, if not necessarily realistic, taking for granted that business processes also tally with services would presume some prior alignment, in other words that the problem has already been solved.

The pragmatic and logically correct approach is therefore to map business processes to system functionalities using whatever option is available, models (CIMs vs PIMs), or views (processes vs functions). And that is where the distinction between business and software semantics is critical: assuming the divide can be overlooked, some “shallow” alignment could be carried out directly providing the models can be translated into some generic language; but if the divide is acknowledged a “deep” alignment will have to be supported by a semantics bridge built across.

Shallow Alignment

Just like models are meant to describe sets of instances, meta-models are meant to describe instances of models independently of their respective semantics. Assuming a semantic continuity between business and systems models, meta-models like OMG’s KDM (Knowledge Discovery Meta-model) appear to provide a very practical solution to the alignment problem.

From a practical point of view, one may assume that no model of functional architecture is available because otherwise it would be aligned “by design” and there would be no problem. So something has to be “extracted” from existing software components:

  1. Software (aka design) models are translated into functional architectures.
  2. Models of business processes are made compatible with the generic language used for system models.
  3. Associations are made based on patterns identified on each side.

While the contents of the first and third steps are well defined and understood, that’s not the case for the second step which take for granted the availability of some agreed upon modeling semantics to be applied to both functional architecture and business processes. Unfortunately that assumption is both factually and logically inconsistent:

  • Factually inconsistent: it is denied by the plethora of candidates claiming for the role, often with partial, overlapping, ambiguous, or conflicting semantics.
  • Logically inconsistent: it simply dodges the question (what’s the meaning of alignment between business processes and supporting systems) either by lumping together the semantics of the respective contexts and concerns, or by climbing up the ladder of abstraction until all semantic discrepancies are smoothed out.

Alignments built on that basis are necessarily shallow as they deal with artifacts disregarding of their contents, like dummies in test plans. As a matter of fact the outcome will add nothing to traceability, which may be enough for trivial or standalone processes and applications, but is to be meaningless when applied at architecture level.

Deep Alignment

Compared to the shallow one, deep alignment, instead of assuming a wide but shallow commonwealth, tries to identify the minimal set of architectural concepts needed to describe alignment’s stake. Moreover, and contrary to the meta-modelling approach, the objective is not to find some higher level of abstraction encompassing the whole of models, but more reasonably to isolate the core of architecture concepts and constructs with shared and unambiguous meanings to be used by both business and system analysts.

That approach can be directly set along the MDA framework:

Languages: general purpose (blue), process or domain specific (green), or design.

Deep alignment makes a distinction between what is at stake at architecture level (blue), from the specifics of process or domain (green), and design (brown).

  • Contexts descriptions (UML, DSL, BPM, etc) are not meant to distinguish between architectural constructs and specific ones.
  • Computation independent models (CIMs) describe business objects and processes combining core architectural constructs (using a generic language like UML), with specific business ones. The former can be mapped to functional architecture, the latter (e.g rules) directly transformed into design artifacts.
  • Platform independent models (PIMs) describe functional architectures using core constructs and framework stereotypes, possibly enriched with specific artifacts managed separately.
  • Platform specific models (PSMs) can be obtained through transformation from PIMs, generated using specific languages, or refactored from legacy code.

Alignment can so focus on enterprise and systems architectural stakes leaving the specific concerns dealt with separately, making the best of existing languages.

Alignment & Traceability

As mentioned above, comparing alignment with traceability may help to better understand its meaning and purpose.

  • Traceability is meant to deal with links between development artifacts from requirements to software components. Its main objective is to manage changes in software architecture and support decision-making with regard to maintenance and evolution.
  • Alignment is meant to deal with enterprise objectives and systems capabilities. Its main objective is to manage changes in enterprise architecture and support decision-making with regard to organization and systems architecture.


As a concluding remark, reducing alignment to traceability may counteract its very purpose and make it pointless as a tool for enterprise governance.

Further readings