Dieser Artikel stammt aus unserem Blog, der nicht mehr betreut wird. Für Neuigkeiten zu oose und interessante Inhalte zu unseren Themen, folgt uns gerne auf LinkedIn.

Part III - High Integration vs. Freedom to Choose?

Welcome back to the 3rd and final part of this blog-series. In the last two parts we had a detailed look into the modeling concepts, diagrams, methods and processes of Arcadia and Capella as well as SYSMOD using SysML. Today we will compare both methodologies on the project level with focus on tooling, language, methods, and processes as well as their customization.

But what does project level mean? The idea is to show the main factors you need to consider when implementing a MBSE project and how those factors are realized by both methodologies.

The blog post is structured as follows:

1. What are typical criteria for successfully implementing a MBSE project?
2. Comparing Capella/ Arcadia and SYSMOD
3. Outlook - Increasing Interoperability

---

1. MBSE requirements

In order to successfully implement and execute a MBSE project, the following criteria are essential and must be considered:

• Tools: Including the modeling tool that supports your modeling language, method, and process. The integration of other relevant tools, e.g., for requirements management or simulation, is very important, too
• Language, Method & Process: See blog-part I & blog-part II
• Customization and adoption of tools, language, methods, and process: Tailoring and customization of tools, language, methods, and processes can take a lot of up-front work and should not be underestimated. But only an environment that meets the specific project requirements enables value generation out of doing MBSE and prevents the team from doing unnecessary work. If not done properly it can hinder the adoption and increase the resistance to change by the team. (For more information about MBSE adoption and MBSE adoption challenges see also Chami, et al. (2018) or Weilkiens (2020))
• Training and Roles: In a MBSE project there are different roles who perform different tasks and require specific skills. It is important to provide training about the tools, methods & process to build up the required knowledge and skills in the team and the stakeholders involved. Another important factor is coaching from experts to support solving issues that arise during project execution

2. Comparison

In the following overview is a comparison of Capella/ Arcadia and SYSMOD according to the criteria mentioned above. As in the previous posts we consider SYSMOD using SysML.

Of course, it is not an easy task to decide which methodology to use for a MBSE project. There are many factors that need to be consider. Using an approach that let’s you start right ahead with little up-front work can enable early value generation and a steep learning curve. But with limited freedom of customization issues can be encountered, too. If there are very specific project needs or an already existing environment that requires a high-level of customization.

3. Outlook - Increasing Interoperability

There are some recent and future developments that might give hope to an increasing interoperability between Capella/ Arcadia and SYSMOD using SysML.

1. SysML v2: SysML is on the way to its next big milestone with SysML v2. The v2 is going to provide a metamodel for SysML (not a SysML profile for UML like it is done for the SysML v1.x). There will also be a standardized API to access the SysML model. This is going to improve interoperability between SysML tools. Furthermore, it might enable the ability for Capella to access SysML models or even further improve the mapping or transformation between a SysML and Capella/ Arcadia model. (for more information about the SysML v2 see and see)
2. Integration into OpenMBEE: "OpenMBEE (Open Model Based Engineering Environment) is an open-source collaborative engineering system. It enables engineers to work in the language of their choice and easily share and document their work across other tools." The OpenMBEE provides among other things the Model Management System (MMS) for example to manage models and access them via CRUD operations. On github there is a connector for OpenMBEE and Capella (see) Having a tool- and language-agnostic environment like OpenMBEE could enable the interoperability between Capella/ Arcadia models and SysML models (with SYSMOD stereotypes). It would be interesting to see if this is feasible

 

Thanks a lot for joining me on this MBSE journey. I am looking forward to your comments about Capella, Arcadia, SYSMOD and SysML. Did I miss something in your opinion, or do you have a different view on some of the topics? Just leave a comment.

Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues Tim Weilkiens and Bernd Busam at oose Innovative Informatik eG for their knowledgeable support and continuous feedback over the last months.

---

Sources:

Capella Tool

Capella Studio

Chami et al. (2018) - Towards Solving MBSE Adoption Challenges

GitHub (2020), OpenMBEE MMS Connector for Capella

MBSE4U (2020),  SysML v2 release - Whats Inside?

OMG (2019), SysML v1.6 Specification

OMG (2021), SysML v2

OpenMBEE (2021)

Weilkiens (2020), SYSMOD - The Systems Modeling Toolbox