Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 119 (2023) 897–902

33rd CIRP Design Conference

Implementation and Assessment of a Comprehensive Model-Based Systems

Engineering Methodology with Regard to User Acceptance in Practice
Constantin Mandela,*, Jerome Kasparb, Rebecca Heitmannc, Sarah Horstmeyerc, Alex Martina,
Albert Albersa
a
IPEK – Institute of Product Engineering, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Kaiserstr. 10, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
b
Model-Based Engineering Department, :em engineering methods AG, Rheinstraße 97, 64295 Darmstadt, Germany
c
Systems Engineering, HARTING Applied Technologies GmbH, Wilhelm-Harting-Straße 1, 32339 Espelkamp, Germany
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-721-60847198; fax: +49-721-06845487. E-mail address: [email protected]

Abstract

Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is becoming increasingly popular, not only in research but also in industrial companies. However,
MBSE approaches (i.e. methods, frameworks, ontologies, and tools) are usually developed at a scientific level, so that they are too generic and
formal for a company's internal use leading to acceptance issues in industrial practice. Against this background, this contribution presents a
comprehensive user-oriented MBSE methodology tackling this lack of acceptance in industrial practice. Based on ten previously derived fields
of action for individual and organizational acceptance of MBSE approaches, a first positive evaluation of the MBSE methodology has been
received. In this contribution, a further developed MBSE methodology is presented, which is created in cooperation of partners from research
and industry. Assessment of this further developed MBSE methodology with six companies across different industries shows a positive impact
on acceptance in comparison to existing MBSE approaches across the identified fields of action. Major improvements are seen regarding the
perceived performance and benefit of MBSE, the usability of the modeling tool, and the communication within a development team. Smaller
improvements are noted regarding the establishment of a clear target picture and modeling process, as well as in tackling ambiguity when
modeling in a development team. In addition, research at one of the industrial partners shows that company-specific tailoring and implementation
of the developed MBSE methodology can be performed in a fast and straightforward way.
© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer review under the responsibility of the scientific committee of the 33rd CIRP Design Conference

Keywords: Model-Based Systems Engineering, modeling, product development, user-orientation, evaluation

1. Introduction and Motivation from industry state, that often these approaches cannot be
directly transferred to company practice [2]. In addition, many
Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is gaining users nowadays have little to no experience in creating and
increasing popularity across different industrial applications analyzing system models. The MBSE approaches developed at
[1]. MBSE primarily offers the possibility of making diverse the scientific level are often too generic and formal for the
information from product development accessible to various company's internal use case and must be tailored to individual
stakeholders in a targeted and transparent manner and across needs. Thus, new flexible and user-oriented MBSE approaches
projects. While at the moment a consistent use of MBSE is only that are easily adaptable to the specific needs of a company are
seen in individual pioneering companies, several companies required. In this contribution, a MBSE methodology aiming at
report that they are introducing MBSE in their work [1, 2]. A addressing factors for user acceptance of MBSE in industrial
multitude of MBSE approaches have been proposed in applications is introduced and initially evaluated. The research
literature (see e.g. [3]). However, surveys with representatives builds on existing descriptions of the IPEK MBSE

2212-8271 © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer review under the responsibility of the scientific committee of the 33rd CIRP Design Conference
10.1016/j.procir.2023.03.135
898 Constantin Mandel et al. / Procedia CIRP 119 (2023) 897–902

methodology [4]. This methodology is applied and further While this research investigates rather the introduction process,
developed with partners from industry and research in the conclusions can be drawn regarding the acceptance of MBSE
Federal Ministry of Education and Research Germany approaches in particular. Several studies from the last years
(BMBF)-funded research Project MoSyS – Human Oriented investigate the current state of Systems Engineering in practice
Design of Complex Systems of Systems. To assess the impact (see e.g. [2, 12]). Therein, challenges for the use of (MB)SE
of the resulting MoSyS MBSE methodology on user described by interviewees from industry and research are
acceptance of MBSE, interviews are conducted with six partner analyzed and consolidated. Based on this existing research,
companies. For the company HARTING Applied Technologies Mandel et al. derive ten fields of action for the acceptance of
(HARTING AT), a tailored application is introduced. MBSE approaches (see Table 1, [4]). As for Lohmeyer et al.
[10], those fields of action are discerned between individual (I)
2. State of Research and organizational (O) acceptance. The fields of action can on
the one hand serve to derive objectives and requirements for
2.1. Advanced Systems Engineering (ASE) and Model-Based the development of MBSE approaches to support their
Systems Engineering (MBSE) acceptance. On the other hand, the fields of action can be used
to structure the evaluation of MBSE approaches e.g., in the
Increasing interconnectedness and system complexity form of semi-structured interviews or surveys.
characterize today's product engineering [5, 6]. Advanced
Systems Engineering (ASE) provides a context for the Table 1: Fields of action for the acceptance of MBSE approaches [4]
integration of approaches and tools of modern engineering.
ASE integrates three pillars: Advanced Systems, Advanced Individual Acceptance Organizational Acceptance
Engineering, and Systems Engineering [2].
Advanced Systems are characterized as intelligent, cyber- I1: Perceived performance of O1: (Monetary) benefit-effort
physical systems with a high degree of autonomy, individual users ratio
interconnectedness, and socio-technical interaction. They often I2: Intuitiveness of applicability O2: Teach and learnability
constitute a part of a larger so-called System of Systems (SoS). I3: Flexibility and adaptability O3: Reusability and extendibility
Advanced Engineering represents new technical and
I4: Usability of the modeling tool O4: Problem orientation
organizational approaches to engineering that enrich methods,
processes, tools, and work organizations with creative, agile, I5: Target vision and modeling
and digital aspects. Systems Engineering is an approach that procedure clear for users
supports the collaboration of different disciplines and the I5: Appropriate level of formalization
handling of the associated complexity in projects and
Mandel et al. further describe the development and
organizations. [2]
According to INCOSE, MBSE forms the future of Systems assessment of the acceptance of an MBSE methodology along
Engineering [6]. MBSE describes a formalized approach to the those fields of action [4]. By structuring the interviews along
creation of cross-domain system models. Such an MBSE- them, the analysis of strengths and areas for further
system model may contain (but is not limited to) elements to improvement of the developed MBSE methodology regarding
support the technical processes of the INCOSE Systems its acceptance can be specified.
Engineering Handbook/ISO 15288 [7]. To create such a system
model, three essential “pillars” are needed: a modeling 2.3. Existing MBSE approaches
language, a modeling tool, and a method and/or an architecture
framework to use the language [8]. According to Holt and In industry and research, various MBSE approaches,
Perry, the modeling language should be based on an ontology covering different pillars of MBSE, are described (see e.g. [3]).
that is implemented using a standard formal language such as In order to support the placement of the research described in
SysML [9]. In addition, viewpoints, arranged in an architecture
this paper, a non-exhaustive overview of popular MBSE
framework, describe filters on the system model, focusing on
sub-sets of the ontology [9]. For this contribution, the term approaches is given in this paragraph.
“comprehensive” in the methodology description denotes the A first category of MBSE approaches focuses on method
integrated and mutually harmonized consideration and descriptions. The Object-Oriented Systems Engineering
development of a modeling language, a modeling method, tool Method (OOSEM) is a modeling method developed within the
customization to support modeling as well as an architecture INCOSE OOSEM Working Group to support the specification,
framework for the models to be created. analysis, and design as well as the verification of a system [5].
The FAS (Functional Architectures for Systems) method aims
2.2. Fields of action to address the acceptance of MBSE at supporting the development of the functional system
approaches in practice architecture based on use cases and detailed activities [13].
Unlike other modeling methods, SYSMOD (System Modeling
The evaluation of the acceptance of Systems Engineering Process) does not require a fixed sequence of activities to be
and in particular MBSE in practice is a subject of research from followed but serves as a toolbox for covering different aspects
of the creation of an MBSE system model [14].
different perspectives. Lohmeyer et al. describe six evaluation
Other MBSE approaches integrate the description of
criteria to assess the acceptance of MBSE approaches [10].
modeling methods with customized modeling languages.
Furthermore, the authors discern between acceptance by
CONSENS (CONceptual design Specification technique for
individuals (individual acceptance) and on an organizational the Engineering of mechatronic Systems) aims at enabling a
level (organizational acceptance). Bretz et al. investigate holistic and interdisciplinary, engineering-oriented description
barriers to the introduction of Systems Engineering [11].
 Constantin Mandel et al. / Procedia CIRP 119 (2023) 897–902 899

of the system model [15]. Even another step further, for the • RQ 1: How can the existing IPEK-MBSE methodology be
ARCADIA method, including language specifications, a further developed to fit demands gained from the industry
customized tool called Capella is developed and provided as partners?
open-source software [16]. • RQ 2: How and to what extent does the (further) developed
Further MBSE approaches follow the description of Holt MBSE methodology impact the assessment of the fields of
and Perry [9] and establish architecture frameworks consisting action in comparison to the MBSE approaches known by the
of a set of viewpoints to create system models. The Software partners?
Platform Embedded Systems (SPES) is a two-axis framework • RQ 3: How may a tailored (i. e. company-specific) MBSE
for structuring a system model [17]. The vertical axis describes approach be derived from the developed MBSE
the abstraction levels (system, sub-system, etc.) and the methodology and introduced in a company context?
horizontal axis describes the four different viewpoints:
A central environment for the research described in this paper
Requirements, Functional, Logical, and Technical. This allows
is the project MoSyS. MoSyS includes 18 partners from
to visualize model information on a desired granularity level
industry and research and aims at developing new methods,
and in a desired viewpoint for different stakeholders. Similarly,
tools, and guidelines to support the development of todays and
MagicGrid is Dassault Systèmes' approach based on the
future complex systems of systems. Therein, the IPEK MBSE
SysML modeling language that combines a modeling method
methodology from existing research is applied, concretized,
and an architecture framework [18]. The MagicGrid
and further developed to a MoSyS MBSE methodology (RQ
framework is also represented as a two-dimensional matrix of
1). To tackle RQ 2, seven semi-structured interviews with
viewpoints and is available as a template for the modeling tool
partners from six different companies are performed. The
Cameo Systems Modeler [18].
company-specific implementation of the MoSyS MBSE
As a comprehensive methodology covering all the pillars of
methodology is performed at HARTING AT (RQ 3). As a user
MBSE, Mandel et al. present the IPEK MBSE methodology. It
company, HARTING AT is involved in the MoSyS research
combines a reusable model structure, presented in the form of
project with the motivation to introduce and consolidate MBSE
an architecture framework, with targeted modeling activities.
in its own company. The company develops, designs, and
In doing so, identified fields of action for an improved
manufactures special-purpose machines in the field of
organizational and individual acceptance of MBSE approaches
assembly and automation technology and has a high level of
are addressed. In the presented methodology, agile modeling of
expertise in the development of batch-size 1 solutions.
product, reference- and validation systems is supported. The
used framework can be extended by further layers, e.g. for
4. The MoSyS MBSE methodology
engineering change management, as needed. [4]
Over the first two years of the project duration, concepts
3. Research gap and research questions
from the IPEK MBSE methodology have been introduced in
MoSyS and further developed in several workshops. The
The use of MBSE to support the development of complex
systems is widely regarded to be beneficial if not essential in further development aims at refining the MBSE methodology
today’s product development. However, studies show that to fit demands seen in industrial applications of MBSE. The
MBSE approaches appear to lack acceptance in practice. In developed MoSyS MBSE methodology consists of the four
existing research, we identified fields of action to address MBSE pillars: an ontology, a set of viewpoints arranged in an
barriers to acceptance. We developed the IPEK MBSE architecture framework, methodical descriptions of individual
methodology, addressing those fields of action. Studies in an modeling activities as well as tool customization and templates
innovation project of students and an industry partner indicate to support the modeling.
a positive impact of the IPEK MBSE methodology for The ontology, as the basis for the modeling language, is
individual and organizational acceptance [4]. developed and refined in regular workshops with ten partners
In this contribution, further development and assessment of from industry and research within the MoSyS project. In the
the developed MBSE methodology with partners from industry ontology, classes of elements as well as their relations that
are presented. The goal of the research is to analyze the impact should be used for modeling are defined. Not only classes for
of the MBSE methodology regarding the fields of action with the description of the product but also for modeling of the
practitioners from different industries and with different problem space (e.g. Stakeholder Needs), production system
backgrounds. Therefore, we first describe the further (e.g. Production Processes), and validation system (e.g. Test
development of the MBSE methodology in cooperation and Cases) are defined. The ontology is further used to define new
based on continuous feedback from the industry partners in a classes of modeling elements in the software tool iQUAVIS as
project context. We aim at investigating, if and how the further well as for the definition of a SysML profile.
developed MBSE methodology impacts the assessment of the Based on the ontology, we define a structuring architecture
fields of action in comparison to existing MBSE approaches framework and viewpoints. A viewpoint of the framework is
known and used by the industry partners. In addition, the based on concerns that a stakeholder wants to resolve by
further developed MBSE methodology aims at being easily working with the model. Those concerns have also been
applicable to the context of industrial applications. Therefore, identified and detailed with the partners from the MoSyS
we describe the first insights from a company-specific project. They include, for example, the analysis of
implementation of the methodology. For the research, we environmental- and boundary conditions for the system in its
formulate three research questions (RQ): use or the functional architecture of the system. Each viewpoint
covers a sub-set of the ontology, i.e. selected classes and their
dependencies that should be modeled for the viewpoint. Like
900 Constantin Mandel et al. / Procedia CIRP 119 (2023) 897–902

this, when implementing the viewpoints in a tool, the useable development consultancy (one person), and an MBSE tool
elements for modeling can be restricted, helping users in provider/consultant (one person). Most of the interviewed
focusing on exactly the information, they should present in the persons see their expertise and previous experience with MBSE
viewpoint. Just like the ontology, the viewpoints for the MoSyS at a medium to higher medium level. One person each indicates
MBSE methodology are implemented as templates in that they are at a beginner or an expert level.
iQUAVIS as well as Cameo Systems Modeler. The viewpoints The interviewees participated in the further development of
can be structured along different dimensions [19]. In this way, the MoSyS MBSE methodology in the form of multiple
they can be represented in multi-dimensional matrices, similar workshops over the course of around two years of the MoSyS
as it is done for the SPES or MagicGrid framework. The project. In parallel, continuous exemplary applications of the
framework for the MoSyS MBSE methodology uses a two- MoSyS MBSE methodology for the modeling of products and
dimensional matrix for each, product, production system, and validation systems from the partners have been performed. In
validation system. The first dimension structures the this way, a continuous iteration between application, feedback,
framework into the description of Problem Space, and further development could be realized.
Requirements, Functional Architecture, Logical Architecture, To structure the interview questions, the described fields of
and Physical Architecture. The second dimension discerns action for acceptance of MBSE (see paragraph 2.2) are used as
between viewpoints for the description of the system itself and categories. For each field of action, interviewees are asked to
for traceability across different elements. compare the MoSyS MBSE methodology to MBSE approaches
While matrix-style frameworks support a clear, reusable previously known to them regarding different aspects (see
structure for modeling, especially users that are new to MBSE Table 2). It has to be noted, that the asked questions do not raise
appear to favor flowchart-like descriptions to guide their the claim to fully evaluate the field of action. The formulation
modeling [4]. However, flowchart descriptions of a modeling of the questions along the identified fields of action is rather
method may guide users to follow a strictly sequential, meant to support an extensive analysis of the acceptance of the
waterfall-like performing of modeling activities. This does not MoSyS MBSE methodology.
reflect the practice of product development where, especially
for agile approaches, activities are performed iteratively over Table 2: Interview questions, organized along the identified fields of action
for the acceptance of MBSE approaches
the whole product development process. To support iterative
development while at the same time using easily
understandable flowchart descriptions to guide users in Field of Aspects addressed in the questions asked
action
modeling, the MoSyS MBSE methodology integrates the
concepts of reusable modeling activities from the IPEK MBSE Perceived performance of MBSE
I1 Support for finding the appropriate views/activities that
methodology [4]. Therein, a modeling activity describes a
consistent micro-procedure for a modeling task (e. g., “model can be helpful for modeling in a specific project
Finding a quick start into modeling
use cases”). Each step of the modeling activity describes I2 Targeted location of modeling activities and views that are
analysis (drawing information from the model) or synthesis relevant to a given modeling purpose/problem statement
(adding/altering information to/from the model) activities
I3 Flexible, iterative, agile execution of modeling activities
using the defined viewpoints. An overview of the described
I4 Usability of the modeling tool
concepts of the MoSyS MBSE methodology is given in Fig. 1.
Establishment of a clear target picture for the use of
MBSE in a project
I5
Continuous use of MBSE throughout all phases of the
project
Communication within a team
I6 Communication to external stakeholders
Support for unambiguousness in modeling and
communication
O1 Benefit/effort ratio of MBSE
O2 Teachability/learnability of the methodology
Specific adaptation/extension to own needs
O3
Reusability of (parts of) created models
O4 Support for modeling the problem space
To support the analysis of the interviews, interviewees were
Fig. 1: Structure of the MoSyS MBSE methodology (excerpt) initially asked to rate their answers on a scale from -2 (the
MoSyS MBSE methodology is performing significantly worse
5. Initial assessment of the MoSyS MBSE methodology with regard to the question) to + 2 (the MoSyS MBSE
methodology is performing significantly better with regard to
5.1. Background of the interview study the question). Like this, a numerical analysis of answers can be
performed. Discussions of the answers and to further open
In order to analyze, if and how the MoSyS MBSE questions are recorded to further support their interpretation.
methodology may impact the acceptance of MBSE in practice,
seven semi-structured interviews with MoSyS partners from 5.2. Results of the interview study
six companies are performed. The companies originate in
machinery (one person), special-purpose engineering (three Analysis of the performed interviews shows, that on average
persons), automotive supplier (one person), product the partners see a positive impact of the developed MBSE
 Constantin Mandel et al. / Procedia CIRP 119 (2023) 897–902 901

methodology across all fields of action. The areas, where Due to a high degree of individuality, the new development
interviewees see the biggest improvements in comparison to effort and thus also efforts for system modeling at HARTING
existing MBSE approaches are shown in Fig. 2. AT are high for each project. It is therefore necessary to keep
the modeling effort as simple and low as possible. Along the
development process, it was first analyzed which artifacts in
future development projects should be described in a model-
based manner. For this purpose, a company-specific ontology
was developed analogous to the MoSyS MBSE methodology.
Within the analysis phase, various methods, such as an
environmental analysis as well as the consideration of
requirements and risks, were located to understand the task and
to document it in a model-based manner. For each of these
methods, the sequence of concrete analysis and synthesis
activities was defined in the form of modeling activities. In
addition, it was defined in which form of representation (e. g.,
Fig. 2: Identified areas of biggest improvement for MBSE acceptance
tables, hierarchical structure models, flowcharts) these
activities could be documented. These viewpoints were then
The areas, where interviewees see the smallest transferred as templates to the modeling tool iQUAVIS. In
improvements are shown in Fig. 3. addition to detailed method documentation, the various
methods in form of step-by-step guides were implemented into
the modeling tool. Interactive navigation within the modeling
activities, so that the views can be opened directly for editing,
is realized by the use of hyperlinks in the modeling tool. The
method instructions are in turn integrated into a project
template where they are arranged in the graphically represented
development process to support the user, see Fig. 4.
The individual methods were assigned to the different
project phases to support the modeler with the sequence for
developing a system model. High quality of the system model
can be guaranteed by the predefined modeling templates and
the method guidelines. Due to the various modelers in the same
project and a large number of interconnections between
Fig. 3: Identified areas of lowest improvement for MBSE acceptance different data elements, such specifications are necessary to
make the structure of the system model manageable.
Future research needs to further investigate these areas, The company-specific adjusted MBSE methodology,
where interviewees see only minor improvements or some even including the modeling guidelines and view templates, enables
worsening with regard to existing MBSE approaches. In this the execution of MBSE efficiently and equally across projects.
context, notable open comments from the interviews include Furthermore, the adjustment to stakeholder concerns e.g., by
the proposition, to further equip the developed MoSyS MBSE adding data attributes in views, has increased acceptance.
methodology with a stakeholder-specific filtering concept to
automatically hide parts of the MBSE methodology that are not
relevant for the tasks of a specific stakeholder.
An observation worth noting is, that respondents rate the
improvement in communication within a team on a high level
(average rating of 1.43). However, improvements regarding
communication with external partners (e.g., customers) and
unambiguousness in modeling and communication are rated
significantly lower (average ratings of 0.86 and 0.75,
respectively). The support for communicating contents of Fig. 4: Example view of the modeling activities in iQUAVIS
created models to external stakeholders was already one of the
weakest rated points in the initial analysis of the IPEK MBSE 7. Statement of contribution and discussion
methodology [4]. Thus, further research needs to investigate
possibilities for communicating and discussing contents of the In this paper, the comprehensive MoSyS MBSE
created models in a low-threshold form to external partners. methodology consisting of a modeling language, architecture
framework, tool customization, and a modeling method of
6. Company-specific implementation of the MoSyS MBSE reoccurring modeling activities is presented. The analysis of
methodology seven semi-structured interviews indicates, that the MoSyS
MBSE methodology may have a positive impact on user
Initial efforts for a target-oriented implementation of the acceptance across all described fields of action. It is thus
MoSyS MBSE methodology are performed at HARTING AT. expected to make a contribution to overcoming the described
Early insights from this implementation will be discussed here challenges of acceptance of MBSE in practice. Aspects for
to support the assessment of the MoSyS MBSE methodology. further development have been identified especially in
902 Constantin Mandel et al. / Procedia CIRP 119 (2023) 897–902

supporting the establishment of a clear target picture for users Research on Production, Services and Work” program (funding
as well as communicating contents of the created models to number 02J19B106 - 02J19B090) and managed by the Project
external stakeholders like customers. Management Agency Karlsruhe (PTKA). The authors are
However, the fact that the interviewees participated in the responsible for the content of this publication.
further development of the MoSyS MBSE methodology has to
be noted. On the one hand, like this it could be ensured, that References
experiences and best practices from various industries could be
implemented in the methodology. On the other hand, the [1] Cloutier R. 2018 Model Based Systems Engineering Survey: Conducted
answers to the interviews have to be analyzed carefully in front December 2018. In: Proceedings of the 2019 INCOSE MBSE Workshop.
of this background. A presumably existing bias, as inputs from 2019.
the partners have already been taken into account when [2] Dumitrescu R, Albers A, Riedel O, Stark R, Gausemeier J. Advanced
developing the methodology, has to be further analyzed. In Systems Engineering - Value Creation in Transition: Engineering in
Germany – Status quo in Business and Science. 2021.
addition, future research needs to detail the identified fields of [3] Estefan JA. Survey of model-based systems engineering (MBSE)
action in order to expand the coverage of the fields by questions methodologies. INCOSE MBSE Focus Group 2007;25(8):1-70.
asked in the interviews. [4] Mandel C, Martin A, Albers A. Addressing Factors for User Acceptance
As demonstrated in the example of HARTING AT, the of Model-Based Systems Engineering. In: Proceedings of the XXXIII
MoSyS MBSE methodology can be straightforwardly ISPIM Innovation Conference "Innovating in a Digital World". 2022.
customized to fit a company-specific context. Further [5] Friedenthal S, Moore A, Steiner R. A practical Guide to SysML: The
Systems Modeling Language. 2nd ed. Waltham: Morgan Kaufmann OMG
investigation of this customization and introduction process is
Press; 2012.
already ongoing. Their analysis, as well as the analysis of the [6] Friedenthal S, et al. Systems Engineering Vision 2035: Engineering
acceptance of the introduced MBSE approach, will be part of Solutions for a Better World. San Diego: INCOSE; 2021.
future research. In addition, the assessment and company- [7] Walden DD, Roedler GJ, Forsberg KJ, Hamelin RD, Shortell TM.
specific implementation were performed together with Systems Engineering Handbook – A Guide for System Life Cycle
companies with prior experience in MBSE or participating in Processes and Activities. 4th ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2015.
MoSyS, an ASE research project. Further research needs to [8] Delligatti L. SysML distilled: A brief guide to the systems modeling
language. Upper Saddle River: Addison-Wesley; 2014.
cover a comprehensive evaluation with further companies
[9] Holt J, Perry S. SysML for Systems Engineering: A Model-Based
having less prior involvement in ASE and that may be less Approach. Stevenage: Institution of Engineering and Technology; 2018.
affected by a bias, in order to fortify the results. [10] Lohmeyer Q, Albers A, Radimersky A, Breitschuh J. Individual and
Organizational Acceptance of Systems Engineering Methods - Survey and
8. Outlook Recommendations. In: Proceedings of TMCE 2014. 2014.
[11] Bretz L, Kaiser L, Dumitrescu R. An analysis of barriers for the
introduction of Systems Engineering. Procedia CIRP 2019;84:783-789.
The MoSyS MBSE methodology is further evaluated and [12] Gausemeier J, Dumitrescu R, Steffen D, Czaja A, Wiederkehr O,
refined in the context of the project MoSyS. In particular, Tschirner C. In: Systems Engineering in industrial practice. 2015.
solutions for the identified areas of improvement for the [13] Lamm J,G,, Weilkiens T. Funktionale Architekturen in SysML.
MoSyS MBSE methodology (see paragraph 5.2) will be Proceedings des Tag des Systems Engineering (TdSE '10), 2010.
investigated. In addition, further modeling activities will be [14] Weilkiens T. Systems Engineering mit SysML/UML: Anforderungen,
Analyse, Architektur. 3rd ed. Heidelberg: dpunkt. Verlag; 2014.
defined and introduced in the methodology. Especially for [15] Gausemeier J, Brandis R, Rafal D, Mülder A, Nysen A, Terfloth A.
modeling activities regarding the validation system, research is Integrative Konzipierung von Produkt und Produktionssystem. In:
already ongoing and shows positive feedback regarding user Gausemeier J, Lanza G, Lindemann U, editors. Produkte und
acceptance [20]. Furthermore, research regarding the Produktionssysteme integrativ konzipieren: Modellbildung und Analyse
introduction of model-based engineering change management in der frühen Phase der Produktentstehung. Munich: Carl Hanser Verlag;
2012. p. 88-125.
into the MoSyS MBSE methodology is ongoing [21]. [16] Jean-Luc Voirin, Model-based System and Architecture Engineering with
In addition, the development of further company-specific the Arcadia Method. London: ISTE Press - Elsevier, 2017. [Online].
implementations of the MBSE methodology with additional Available: https://www.elsevier.com/books/model-based-system-and-
companies can give additional insights into its applicability and architecture-engineering-with-the-arcadia-method/voirin/978-1-78548-
acceptance. HARTING AT will validate the MoSyS MBSE 169-7
[17] Pohl K, Broy M, Daembkes H, Hönninger H. Advanced Model-Based
methodology adapted so far in selected pilot projects and Engineering of Embedded Systems. Cham: Springer International
thereby introduce more and more employees to working with Publishing; 2016.
it. The feedback will then be fed back into the MBSE [18] Aleksandraviciene A, Morkevicius A. MagicGrid Book of Knowledge: A
methodology regularly, resulting in improvements through Practical Guide to Systems Modeling using MagicGrid from Dassault
further need-based adjustments. The changes can then be Systèmes. 2nd ed. 2021.
[19] Mandel C, et al. Towards a System of Systems Engineering Architecture
evaluated in new projects and the methodology can thus be Framework. In: 2022 17th Annual System of Systems Engineering
integrated more and more into everyday project work. Conference (SOSE). 2022. p. 221-226.
[20] Wiecher C, et al. Model-based Analysis and Specification of Functional
Acknowledgement Requirements and Tests for Complex Automotive Systems. (Preprint),
doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2209.01473.
[21] Martin, Alex; Kasper, Jerome; Pfeifer, Stefan; Mandel, Constantin; Rapp,
This article is part of the research project MoSyS - Human- Simon; Albers, Albert (2022): Advanced Engineering Change Impact
Oriented Design of Complex Systems of Systems. This project Approach (AECIA) – Towards a model-based approach for a continuous
is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Engineering Change Management. In: 8th IEEE International Symposium
Research (BMBF) within the “The Future of Value Creation – on Systems Engineering (ISSE). Viena, Austria, doi:
10.1109/ISSE54508.2022.1000553