Master complexity. Accelerate innovation.

Companies typically introduce MBSE for one of two different reasons.

Compliance-driven: To meet stringent industry standards such as ISO 26262, ASPICE or DO-178C. The risk: MBSE degenerates into a purely bureaucratic obligation with no real benefit.

Value-driven: To sustainably improve quality and efficiency. The focus is on early model validation, error-free impact analyses and cross-disciplinary reuse of components.

Our recommendation is the value-driven entry: it delivers the actual return and covers the compliance requirements at the same time.

Automotive Tier-1: Safety analysis automated from the system architecture

For a leading automotive supplier, we used MBSE to build the decisive bridge between the system architecture and the processes of functional safety. Based on a model-based system analysis and complete requirements traceability, the System FMEA could be derived seamlessly from the system architecture and built in an automated fashion.

The safety analysis is now 100% consistent with the real architecture at all times. Manual, error-prone reconciliations are eliminated entirely. Development efforts for ISO 26262 compliance were drastically reduced and release cycles massively accelerated. → Reference: FORVIA HELLA

Mechanical and plant engineering: MBSE introduction in a mid-sized company

Together with a mid-sized mechanical and plant engineering company, we piloted the introduction of model-based development. The previous document-based approach had no defined method for separating the problem side (stakeholder requirements, laws and standards) from the technical solution side. Technical solutions were therefore often uncritically carried over from existing projects, which blocked innovative further development.

Through the introduction of a multi-layered architecture, we were able to sharpen the responsibilities of all clients, ensure compliance with laws and industry standards, and document technical decisions in a traceable manner. Training employees anchored this new way of thinking as a long-term success pattern in the company.

These questions from our project experience help you with an initial orientation.

1. Complexity: Is our development task sufficiently complex, both in terms of the product structure and the large number of responsibilities and disciplines involved?

2. Change dynamics: Do we have high dynamics in requirements and need to analyse the impact of changes across disciplinary boundaries quickly and without errors?

3. Management support: Is senior management fully on board with this cultural change and actively freeing up the necessary resources and budgets for the transition?

4. Team readiness: Is the development team willing to leave familiar document silos behind and embrace new, interconnected ways of working?

5. Process foundation: Are our fundamental processes and responsibilities within the company clarified, or do we need to restructure procedures in parallel?

There is no single correct modelling approach — there is only the one that suits your project. Together, we analyse the concrete framework conditions based on four key questions: What competencies already exist? What tools and processes are in use? What core problems are in the foreground? And what thinking patterns characterise your team?

We provide fully vendor-independent support — whether a technological migration from SysML v1 to SysML v2, the introduction of Capella or Arcadia, or the development of custom domain-specific languages. Co-authoring CONSENS for mechanical engineering and developing ArchE for CARIAD are among our references. → Custom Tooling & Domain-Specific Languages

Success depends on the precise application of the method, not on the method itself.

The successful introduction of Model-Based Systems Engineering is a structured, transparent process.

1. MBSE Maturity Assessment & Goal Definition. Directly in the project kick-off, we jointly analyse your current maturity level. We review the current state of your development processes and define a clear, shared target picture, backed by measurable KPIs, so that success remains steerable from the very beginning.

2. Tool-agnostic tailoring of the methodology. Standard frameworks such as RFLP provide a good basic structure, but rarely fit your reality one-to-one. We tailor the methodology, independent of any tool, precisely to your project and your company. Our focus is on recipient-oriented outputs that create immediately measurable added value for your systems development.

3. Accompaniment in the pilot project. We accompany you in a suitable pilot project directly in day-to-day operations: professionally in concrete modelling and practically in the introduction and correct use of new tools.

4. Scaling & roll-out. After the successful pilot, we broaden the approach. We support the roll-out to further projects and departments on request through active involvement directly in your architecture development.

Accompanying enablement: training your teams. A new process only works if the people master it. In parallel with all steps, we train the staff involved through targeted training in the fundamentals of MBSE, modern requirements engineering and the use of AI in everyday engineering.