MBSE Functional and Logical architectures. Within PLM circles it’s undeniably hot stuff, but swapping those architectures between tools often feels like pulling teeth, especially for colleagues in manufacturing where the shiny Digital Thread risks becoming Digital Spaghetti. The big faux-pas? Thinking Tool B opening Tool A’s file means that we understand each other. Newsflash: that’s compatibility, not the interoperability holy grail we need, and it’s why collaboration stalls.

Right now, the landscape for systems architecture frameworks resembles a bit of a free-for-all. SysML v1 developers planned for ISO 10303-233 to be the foundational metamodel for systems architecture development, but reality check: most folks have adopted, tailored their own, or been forced to use somebody else’s metamodel (MagicGrid, Harmony, Arcadia, UAF, etc.) – and have associated their business processes accordingly to that framework.

So how do we get everyone to understand the same model, or at least parts of it? True interoperability, the kind that would actually help clarify intent for manufacturing, needs more than file-format compatibility; it needs standardized semantic interfaces. But forget boiling the ocean; we need to understand HOW to agree on enough meaning for the job at hand – “selective agreement.”

The pitch? A collaborative, modular common metamodel – flexible building blocks, designed and assembled in an agile way. A stable and coherent foundation for building the robust digital threads manufacturing needs.