A real example of planning together
In March 2023, BMW described using NVIDIA Omniverse to plan its future Debrecen factory virtually. The work brought layouts, robotics and logistics into a shared digital environment. Jensen Huang and BMW production leader Milan Nedeljković demonstrated the planning approach at GTC. This is a documented example of teams using a model to examine a physical system before changing it. Read BMW’s account.
The lesson for RootKnow is practical: people can make better decisions when they can see how their separate pieces affect the same possible result. That observation does not prove that every production problem is a coordination problem.
A projection makes the conditions visible
A projection describes a possible future and the conditions it depends on. It can show what changes for each participant, which contribution is missing and what would count as evidence. Changing a condition changes the possible future. It does not make that future happen.
Existing capacity could become a deliverable part.
A buyer, a drawing and a suitable machine exist. The required certification is missing.
Capacity stays unused for this order.
The workshop can machine the part, but it cannot meet this buyer’s requirements on its own.
Make a part the buyer can accept.
A certification provider could connect existing design and machining capacity to an order they could not previously fulfill.
Check the part against the requirement, record certification and confirm delivery to the buyer.
Imagine a smaller version
The following is a hypothetical RealMaker example. A repair business needs a replacement part. A nearby workshop has the right machine, a designer can prepare the drawing, and a supplier has the material. Each knows something useful. None can finish the job alone.
In the projection shown here, the buyer also requires certification. The drawing and machine are insufficient until a certification provider contributes the required inspection. That extra capability could open an order to participants who already have the other pieces.
A shared view could show the proposed chain and the condition that is still missing. Perhaps the machine is available but the material arrives too late. Perhaps the design is ready but the workshop cannot accept its required tolerance. The plan should change when those facts change.
Where Node and World fit
The proposed RealMaker Node is the workshop’s private operating workspace. It could help the owner understand jobs, materials, machine time and constraints. Those details should help the workshop even before it joins a network.
The proposed RealMaker World connects selected information across participants. The workshop might share that it can make this kind of part under these conditions, while keeping its other contracts and internal costs private. The designer and supplier can then see whether their contributions make the same plan feasible.
Being shown in the plan grants nobody control over the machine. The workshop owner must accept the work. Production remains local. The model then needs evidence of what happened: whether the part was made, whether it met the agreed requirement, and whether it reached the repair business.
What would count as progress?
A persuasive animation would be insufficient. Progress would mean that the shared model helped the participants find a workshop that can make the part, obtain the drawing and material, agree on the work and deliver a part that meets the repairer's requirements. Missing evidence must remain visibly missing.
RootKnow’s research question is whether this process improves real outcomes compared with the participants’ existing tools and relationships. If material shortages, economics or technical limits dominate, a clearer model may help explain the problem without solving it. Learning that would also matter.
RealMaker is in development. The scenario is illustrative. BMW, NVIDIA and Jensen Huang are referenced for public context; no affiliation or endorsement is implied.