## 2 Background
### Modeling Methodologies Used (OPM and PROVE)  
In this paper, we use OPM to represent a GPM approach and PROVE as a DSM approach. We demonstrate some challenges of the modeling effort, and how they can be addressed--by reducing syntax and introducing domain ontology--to advance MBSE applicability and support its meaningful, beneficial use.  
OPM is a leading conceptual modeling language and methodology for modeling systems. OPM modeling can be implemented using the OPCAT or OPCloud modeling tools. We continue by using OPCAT for this paper and note that similar results would be obtained by using OPCloud. OPM is specified in a formal specification [17; 23]. Pertinent aspects of OPM will be explained in the context of their use, as it is both unrealistic and irrelevant to reproduce its specification here.  
OPM has been suggested and demonstrated as a tool for constructing process models. Despite our efforts, we have yet to find well-documented guidelines or uses of OPM for concrete DPD; only theoretical, limited, or straightforward readings of conceptual models were found. [PERSON] et al. [41], for example, explicitly stated that they had used a simplified project model for describing an imaginary development project, specifically mentioning the lack of states in the model as one of the simplification aspects. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. only provided a straightforward reading of the V-Model (a well-known conceptual model for system development) [42].  
[PERSON] et al. evaluated the appropriateness of OPM for modeling information systems requirements specifications, based on a theoretical framework derived from the Bunge-Wand-Weber model [43]. While the authors established that OPM is ontologically complete, they identified deficiencies with respect to its ontological clarity (construct overload, construct redundancy and construct excess). These theoretical deficiencies have yet to be addressed in the design of OPM. Specifically, as a follow-up to the research by [PERSON] et al., [PERSON] and [PERSON] suggested that future work should aim to provide empirical evidence of any impact that such deficiencies have on OPM users [31]. However, there is no work exploring the OPM deficiencies we summarized and their implications. In Section 4, we demonstrate how the said deficiencies of OPM hinder the use of MBSE for designing real-life development processes and risk MBSE objectives.  
Unlike the established OPM, PROVE is a recently-introduced addition to the stock of modeling methodologies. PROVE is a DSM for DPD, designed based on DPD domain ontology [24]. As with OPM, pertinent aspects of PROVE will be explained in their context of use.  
We chose OPM as the representative GPM due to several reasons. First, OPM is a state-of-the-art, standardized MBSE approach [23]. Second, OPM's notation is simpler compared with other GPM (such as SysML and BPMN), allowing us to communicate ideas more easily with the readers. Furthermore, an OPM diagram (OPD) is automatically translated into a natural-language description (OPL), which--we believe--can further facilitate the communication of our models and concepts with the readers.  
We chose PROVE as the representative DSM due to two reasons: (1) PROVE's core concepts are consistent with OPM [24]; thereby, allowing us to explicitly demonstrate how DSMs may contribute to state-of-the-art GPM; and (2) PROVE establishes a DPD ontology with concise notation, allowing us to communicate domain ideas easily with readers.