Recovery Plan - Template 1 1/13/2010 City of . Concept of Operations. System Concept of Operations: Standards, Practices and Reality. A Concept of Operations. SOFIA Science and Mission Operations Plan. Version: <enter version> Basic Emergency Operations Planning September 2009 Emergency Operations Plan Annex Template. Concept of Operations). CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS. PHASE I: READINESS AND PREPAREDNESS. The Laboratory will participate in the full spectrum of. Continuity of Operations Plan Template. Evacuee Support Concept of Operations Template. Emergency Operations Plan. The Evacuee Support Concept of Operations is written from a State and local. Home / Business / Concept of Operations Template. The Concept of Operations document (CONOPs). CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS TEMPLATE. Concept of Operations . A CONOPS also describes the user organization, mission, and objectives from an integrated systems point of view and is used to communicate overall quantitative and qualitative system characteristics to stakeholders . CONOPS can be tailored for many purposes, for example, to obtain consensus among the acquirer, developers, supporters, and user agencies on the operational concept of a proposed system. Additionally, a CONOPS may focus on communicating the user's needs to the developer or the developer's ideas to the user and other interested parties . In some cases MITRE systems engineers may be asked to support the development of a CONOPS. MITRE SEs should be able to apply systems engineering methods to map user (operational) needs to system requirements, functions, and conceptual system designs. They should also be able to develop test requirements that are traceable to system requirements and user needs. In addition, they should test operational concepts (concept validation) and user utility as described in the CONOPS. Background. The purpose of a CONOPS is to describe the operational needs, desires, visions, and expectations of the user without being overly technical or formal. The user, developer, or both may write CONOPS, often with help from MITRE systems engineers. The CONOPS written by a user representative communicates the overall vision for the operational system to the organizations (e. A CONOPS can also be written by the buyer, developer, or acquirer to communicate their understanding of the user needs and how a system will fulfill them. In both cases, the CONOPS is intended to facilitate a common understanding of ideas, challenges, and issues on possible solution strategies without addressing the technical solution or implementation; it is often a first step for developing system requirements. As systems continue to evolve in complexity, SEs and mission owners can utilize a CONOPS to develop and sustain a common vision of the system for all stakeholders over the system's life cycle. The original CONOPS written at the beginning of system acquisition should be updated after developmental and operational testing, to convey how the system being acquired will actually be used. This update is needed since many final systems include some additional capabilities not originally envisioned at program start, and may not include some capabilities that were omitted during trade- off analysis. The CONOPS should include the full range of factors that are needed to support the mission (i. Post- fielding life cycle costs often dwarf those of the development effort. Therefore, it is critical that the CONOPS provide sufficient information to determine long- term life cycle needs such as training, sustainment and support throughout capability fielding and use. A CONOPS should contain a conceptual view of the system (i. A CONOPS should define any critical, top- level, performance requirements or objectives stated either qualitatively or quantitatively (including system rationale for these objectives). The SE should consider the CONOPS as a functional concept definition and rationale from the user and customer perspectives. Multiple CONOPS guidelines, models, and methodologies are available that can be tailored as needed for particular environments or situations. A MITRE SE should be able to determine which CONOPS format, model, or methodology is appropriate for the specific situation, and if (or how) it should be tailored for that system/environment. Johns Hopkins University's Whiting School of Engineering provides an approach to making this decision based on SE analysis of criteria: Program risks. Customer desires, requirements. Funding constraints. Market considerations. Technology considerations. Nature of the system to be developed. Example Methodology. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 1. IEEE Std 1. 36. 2- 1. IEEE Guide for Information Technology—System Definition—Concept of Operations (CONOPS), is an example of a well- developed and commonly used SE CONOPS guideline. Several SE organizations, including the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), currently use the IEEE CONOPS guidelines, which state: This guide does not specify the exact techniques to be used in developing the CONOPS document, but it does provide approaches that might be used. Each organization that uses this guide should develop a set of practices and procedures to provide detailed guidance for preparing and updating CONOPS documents. These detailed practices and procedures should take into account the environmental, organizational, and political factors that influence application of the guide . They should also consider any guidelines that have been put in place by the organization. The main objective of a CONOPS is to . It may also be the case that the operational user does not understand or cannot envision how new capabilities will operate in their environment, particularly if it is a new type of system or operation. In these cases, experiments and prototypes can be of value in illuminating these issues. Additional CONOPS objectives include: Provide end- to- end traceability between operational needs and captured source requirements. Establish a high- level basis for requirements that supports the system over its life cycle. Establish a high- level basis for test planning and system- level test requirements. Support the generation of operational analysis models (use cases) to test the interfaces. Provide the basis for computation of system capacity. Validate and discover implicit requirements. Critical CONOPS Components. When tailoring IEEE Standard 1. CONOPS for a specific purpose, non- critical components can be deleted or minimized. However, the document should always include critical components in any CONOPS. These are contained in IEEE Standard 1. The existing system (manual or automated) the user wants to replace. Justification for a new or modified system (including restrictions on that system). A description of the proposed system. Scenarios highlighting use of the system in the user's environment including internal and external factors. For a software- intensive capability, the CONOPS might have a greater emphasis on the information system perspective of the users' needs and developers' products concentrating on software feasibility and software requirements. System Engineering Applications for a CONOPSMITRE SEs should be able to use various iterations of a CONOPS as a tool throughout the SE life cycle to communicate user needs and system characteristics to developers, integrators, sponsors, funding decision makers, and stakeholders. IEEE Standard 1. 36. CONOPS provides additional clarification. For example, the users could express their need for a . In any case, it is the job of the buyer and/or the developer to quantify users' needs. In some cases, design constraints dictate particular approaches. In other cases, there may be a variety of acceptable solution strategies. The CONOPS document allows users and buyer(s) to record design constraints, the rationale for those constraints, and to indicate the range of acceptable solution strategies . Avoid technical jargon. If user jargon is employed, provide a glossary that translates it for non- users. Use graphics and pictorial tools as much as possible, since a CONOPS should be understandable to different types of stakeholders. Bjorke, April 1. 8- 2. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pp.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |