ARIS - Q&A Session 9:00am CEST
ARIS - Q&A Session 6:00pm CEST

View all

Question: Is there a report, semantic check or generic method to allow for easy discovery of models not adhering to a filter? 

Background: We've been using ARIS for the past ten years, with gradually wider adoption, and sometimes different approaches to modelling standards. During that time, we have gone for a gradual approach, where we create or enable new model types only as needed, with a minimum number of permitted symbols and connections, in order not to swamp modellers with lots of options, allowing them to focus on capturing and communicating knowledge. In order to support that, we have a fairly restricted modelling filter which has only gradually expanded. Models are made available throughout our organizations through ARIS Connect, using that modelling filter. If models are not in compliance with the filter, their occurences and connections are ghosted. 

Alternatives: I've looked at generating a new filter from our published database, and comparing that with our master filter, but this only tells me where there are discrepancies on a metamodel level, without helping me understand which models belonging to whom might be in violation. 

by Nikita Martyanov
Posted on Tue, 05/14/2019 - 22:17

Hello Pontus,

in my opinion there are two ways to solve the problem. The first one is semi-automatic. The second is automatic, but you will be need a small report.

1. As you mentioned before, you can compare two filters and get the difference. Then you can use a standard search and find symbol types that contain in the difference of metamodels. This way will allow you to find particular models, which contains symbols from "the difference of metamodels". But you can't find connections from the difference with this approach.

2. The simplest and powerful solution is to determine difference (as mentioned in 1), create new report (code based) and output list of models that contains the difference of metamodels.

by Pontus Gagge Author
Posted on Tue, 05/21/2019 - 10:30

OK, thanks: at least I'm not missing any built in functionality. I'll put it in the pipeline for report development to support model quality management. 


Featured achievement

You help out the community by answering a question.
Recent Unlocks
  • IG
  • Profile picture for user J-M Erlendson
  • SD
  • RV
  • VP
  • PacMan


Weekly | All-time
icon-arrow-down icon-arrow-cerulean-left icon-arrow-cerulean-right icon-arrow-down icon-arrow-left icon-arrow-right icon-arrow icon-back icon-close icon-comments icon-correct-answer icon-tick icon-download icon-facebook icon-flag icon-google-plus icon-hamburger icon-in icon-info icon-instagram icon-login-true icon-login icon-mail-notification icon-mail icon-mortarboard icon-newsletter icon-notification icon-pinterest icon-plus icon-rss icon-search icon-share icon-shield icon-snapchat icon-star icon-tutorials icon-twitter icon-universities icon-videos icon-views icon-whatsapp icon-xing icon-youtube icon-jobs icon-heart icon-heart2 aris-express bpm-glossary help-intro help-design Process_Mining_Icon help-publishing help-administration help-dashboarding help-archive help-risk icon-knowledge icon-question icon-events icon-message icon-more icon-pencil forum-icon