Hi Bruce, Full disclosure, I am a systems engineer and like the top-down approach to developing systems. Therefore I am intrigued by MBSE using whatever methodology. As you know, I started studying the Harmony/SE process and have also studied the Harmony/ESW process. I thought it would be simple to connect the system world with the software world via SysML/UML models in Rhapsody. However I have seen a pattern with my fellow "embedded software developers". They really don't like Rhapsody and they really don't like UML modeling tools. They think they are clunky, bug-ridden, old and nasty. Many quit their jobs just to avoid it. Software modeling seems to have a bad rep, why is that? They seem to prefer to document their software requirements and software architecture in tools like JIRA and Confluence or using any combination of office tools drawing UML like pictures, but I know that maintaining consistency an traceability using those concepts will be lost. Why don't they want to do proper UML modeling in a tool like Rhapsody? Is it because they are fostered in an "Agile" environment that detests "documentation"? Why is this a struggle? What can be done about it?

Hi Bruce! My collogues have started to delve into Rhapsody for systems engineering purposes. They haven't read your books, followed your (my company's) guidelines and haven't done Harmony at all. They basically starting using it and creatively came up with their own custom methodology. Basically just started drawing stuff on an IBD. So I am trying to convince them on the pros and cons of adding additional model elements except for the once suggested by you. To start with we have two objects: ElectricDrive and Transmission. There is a torque (unit should be NewtonMeter) flowing from the ElectricDrive to the Transmission. Using the Harmony notation the connected architecture would look like this: My collogues instead uses the flow drawing tool: Like this: Thus creating a so called Item Flow in the browser: They apparently like when the thing flowing is written directly above the "line" that connects the objects. However I don't like it since this is not according to the modeling guidelines and simulation becomes impossible. Therefore I thought that you might use what IBM refers to as Embedded Flows which seems to be the Rhapsody implementation of what is called Item Flows in SysML which allows you to view Item Flows on the connector: where the Item Flows tab in the features dialogue of the Flow is then set to the FlowProperty on the IB: This seems to be a good compromise to ensure Harmony consistency while still showing the name and type of the FlowProperty as an Item Flow on the connector. Is this a good usage of the tool according to you? What would be the drawback, except for the redundant work it creates to manually add this Item Flows on all the diagrams...

Hi Bruce, Is there a SysML design pattern for Publisher/Subscriber interfacing? If not, can you briefly give the top-level features in SysML? I guess that would be in terms of a BDD/ IBD diagrams. Great thanks in advance, Avi