In order to evaluate the conceptual mappings from TIPA to ArchiMate, we will perform a BWW analysis (Wand and Weber 1993) according to two criteria: completeness and clarity . The Bunge-Wand-Weber model provides a method for ontological evaluation of grammars, where we compare two sets of concepts to identify four ontological deficiencies:1. Incompleteness: can each element of the first set be mapped to an element of the second? – The cartography is incomplete if it is not total.2. Redundancy: Do the first elements of the set map to more than a second element of the set? – The mapping is redundant if it is ambiguous.3. Excess: Does each first element of a set map to a second element of a set? – The mapping is excessive if there are unrelated first elements defined.4. Overhead: Does each first set element map to exactly one second set element? – The mapping is overloaded if an element in the second set has more than one mapping to that in the first set. The number of TIPA concepts that do not have representation in ArchiMate defines the lack of completeness. Clarity is a combination of redundancy, overload and excess of concepts. Lack of completeness can be a serious problem, while lack of clarity can make mapping one-directional and difficult to reverse. Considering all of the above, we can say that our mapping is complete, because each TIPA concept has an ArchiMate representation of itself. Additionally, ArchiMate concepts can be so generic that they can accommodate some TIPA concepts, meaning that sometimes the mapping does not exactly reflect the actual meaning of the element, but its generic meaning. We take advantage of this, through a set of hypotheses, to achieve completeness. However, an extension to specialize and faithfully represent these concepts would be...... middle of paper...... Center Henri Tudor: Béatrix Barafort, Valérie Betry, Stéphane Cortina, Michel Picard, Marc St-Jean, Alain Renault and OV (2009) Evaluating ITSM processes supporting ITIL. Van Haren Editions20. Renault A, Barafort B (2014) TIPA for ITIL – from genesis to maturity of SPICE applied to ITIL 2011. 21st Eur. Software, Syst. Serve. Process improvement. Innov.21. Sante T, Ermers J (2009) White Paper TOGAF 9 and ITIL v3 Two Frameworks. Getronics Consulting. OGC22. Vicente M, Gama N, Silva MM Da (2013) Using ArchiMate to represent the ITIL metamodel. 2013 IEEE 15th Bus Computer Conference 270–275.23. Wand Y, Weber R (1993) On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. Inf Syst. J 3: 217-237. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.1993.tb00127.x24. Zachman JA (1987) A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst. J 26: 276-292. do i: 10.1147/sj.263.0276