The basic idea of ARCADIA/Capella is to describe how a system works. An Architectural Diagram is in my Opinion one of the most powerful techniques to do this. From my experience, there is no better way to explain to e.g. a colleague how a system works as to show him the Architectural Diagram.
Describing the system (e.g. a Software Program, Mechanical System) is obviously possible using Capella.
However, is it also feasible to describe the development of such a system?
The screenshot I’ve posted shows the workflow of our development. The LAB diagram was incredibly important for us, as it allowed us to assign the individual subtasks to the appropriate colleagues so that they had an overview of the entire system at all times. Once a task was finished, we moved on to the next task, again assigning the individual subtasks to the respective employees.
My question now would be, whether our procedure for the development of a system, corresponds to the “rules” of ARCADIA/Capella, or whether there would be other/better procedures.
Note: A huge advantage of the LAB was of course that each subtask could be described in more detail in its own LAB.