Template:WebNotes/RGAMission Profile: Difference between revisions
Lisa Hacker (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Kate Racaza (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{Template: WebNotesRGABanner}} | {{Template: WebNotesRGABanner}} | ||
|{{Font|Mission Profile Folio|11|tahoma|bold|gray}} | |{{Font|Mission Profile Folio|11|tahoma|bold|gray}} | ||
It is common practice for systems to be subjected to operational testing during a development program, often times under stated mission profile conditions. This stated mission profile attempts to mimic real conditions while taking into account budget, resources, schedule and other considerations. Because of a lack of structure for managing the elements that make up the mission profile, it is difficult to have an agreed upon methodology for estimating the system's reliability. Many systems fail operational testing because key assessments such as growth potential and projections cannot be made in a straightforward manner so that management can take appropriate action. The Mission Profile folio addresses this issue by incorporating a systematic mission profile methodology for operational reliability testing and reliability growth assessments. | It is common practice for systems to be subjected to operational testing during a development program, often times under stated mission profile conditions. This stated mission profile attempts to mimic real conditions while taking into account budget, resources, schedule and other considerations. Because of a lack of structure for managing the elements that make up the mission profile, it is difficult to have an agreed upon methodology for estimating the system's reliability. Many systems fail operational testing because key assessments, such as growth potential and projections, cannot be made in a straightforward manner so that management can take appropriate action. The Mission Profile folio addresses this issue by incorporating a systematic mission profile methodology for operational reliability testing and reliability growth assessments. | ||
|} | |} | ||
{{Font|Learn more from...|11|tahoma|bold|gray}} | {{Font|Learn more from...|11|tahoma|bold|gray}} | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| [[Image:Articleblue.png]] | | [[Image:Articleblue.png]] | ||
| [http://reliawiki.com/index.php/Mission_Profile_Testing_Articles related article(s)...] | | [http://reliawiki.com/index.php/Mission_Profile_Testing_Articles related article(s)...] | ||
|- | |||
| [[Image:Bulbblue.png]] | |||
| [http://www.reliasoft.com/rga/examples/rgex7/index.htm application example(s)...] | |||
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 15:39, 5 February 2014
 |
| Mission Profile Folio
It is common practice for systems to be subjected to operational testing during a development program, often times under stated mission profile conditions. This stated mission profile attempts to mimic real conditions while taking into account budget, resources, schedule and other considerations. Because of a lack of structure for managing the elements that make up the mission profile, it is difficult to have an agreed upon methodology for estimating the system's reliability. Many systems fail operational testing because key assessments, such as growth potential and projections, cannot be made in a straightforward manner so that management can take appropriate action. The Mission Profile folio addresses this issue by incorporating a systematic mission profile methodology for operational reliability testing and reliability growth assessments. |
Learn more from...
|
the help file... |
|
the theory textbook... |
|
related article(s)... |
|
application example(s)... |
