Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Where exactly does the SEC tell investors they can’t share what they bought during the trading day and that it’s associated with scams?
I think that Bravatek still being here and trading speaks for itself as far as scams are concerned. As anything else would have been back to trips again wouldn’t it?
Have a Great day!
Yeah, I added again today. Not as much as I’d like, but its better than having none and feeling bad for not holding some later for the pants pooping party. Go ahead and make fun because a few of us WILL have the last laugh.
What a GREAT DAY!
This is the week for Big News!
Here we go!!!!
BVTK for Life!
Getting ready to fly here.
Bob and Todd have got this thing ready to go!
Saturn 5 rocket sitting on the launch pad here rumbling for take off sequence in 10-9-8-7-........1
YIKES! I learned this week that members of the Widner Family intend to sue IHSi (and all the board members) for refusing to remove everything referring to PAS, Blockchain and Vortex from IHSI printed material.
They are still fraudulently selling stock to people who believe “reconciliation” is just days away.
The following is from the description of IHSI on their investor hub and their website.
“Intelligent Electricity Recycling – 20% of electricity is wasted and returned to the utility, our intelligent technology “recycles” the wasted energy before it returns”.
They have never owned the technology and they will never own any part of it.
It amazes me that they can put anything on their site except a statement clearing that misconception up! They can change and remove anything from the site except claims that they own the technology (our intelligent technology “recycles)
To say that companies are not working off the operating manual created for DHS by Tommy working as Commercialization Officer to the Whitehouse is showing a real lack of recognizing the Antecedent.
I’m buying, nothing but positive vibes coming from Tommy Boy!
In my Opinion, Buy as much as you can comfortably hold into April.
Best of luck to everyone!
Go Bravatek!
Am I the only one buying again today?
You all will be sorry for not having Bravatek shares.
Of course I think everyone on here is holding at least something or else why bother to post here?
Patent is coming!
Record breaking sales efforts numbers coming!
NASDAQ Bound!
GO TEAM BRAVATEK!
WOW! This stock has the most amazing potential I have ever seen!
Buy Buy Buy!
That’s why he’s at the 2019 RSA.
By the way, tickets cost $995 to enter.
Here’s a couple of Chucks full time security professional career contributions:
And he writes here:
https://cognitiveworld.com/our-team/chuck-brooks
And you all can read this:
https://www.alienvault.com/blogs/author/chuck-brooks
What a genius! This company is going to be worth Billions and Billions!
Everything here is to plan and purpose.
I just loaded again. $BVTK
I’m buying every week until we fly.
GO BVTK!
Ok, transfer select amount to transfer. Now, get authorization code. Transfer has been initiated! HERE WE GO! I’m going back in for more guys! 6 weeks of straight buys for me!
Get them while you can! You will regret it if you don’t!
Listen to the live RSA 2019 feed and gain some insight on security in general. Yes, Chuck Brooks is at this event!
Yes, Appgaurd is there too!
Ok, anyone who’s anyone into Security, including the NSA is there.
https://www.rsaconference.com/
Tomorrow, another Great Day to Buy more shares!
Yup!
OH YEAH! It’s GO TIME for Vortex Brands!
I don’t know if these Depends are large enough for all the goodies about to shoot out?
Major players are stepping up here!
Times looking right and future Bright for VTXB!
L-O-A-D-I-N-G Z-O-N-E
On Wednesday, February 27, Secretary Nielsen traveled to San Francisco for a roundtable discussion with industry leaders regarding emerging technologies and evolving threats in order to explore how public-private partnerships can help keep America safe. After the roundtable, Secretary Nielsen received a briefing on the DHS Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) Silicon Valley Innovation Program (SVIP). Through SVIP, DHS is leveraging new technology and startup company innovations to secure the homeland.
Also present in the SF Bay Area last week, CEO of Bravatek Dr Thomas Cellucci.
Yeah, I gotta buy more shares this week. AWESOME Sauce!
I have personally examined the invention and verified its performance. I am a licensed California Electrical Contractor. I have money invested. Bob’s habits have been installed at numerous locations for years before a ready for market system could be configured with the proper PCBs and self starting/adjusting CPU.
Get all the shares you can here people! California Market alone represents $1.6B or yearly revenue. With the global contacts long established here, this will fly fast and hard to Moon orbit.
VTXB is NASDAQ material!
BLASTING OFF Here!
......LOAD THE BOAT.....!OP
/NASDAQ
Here we come!
$VTXB
BONUS ROUND Time to BUY!
MACD lines Indicates massive opportunity here IMO.
LOAD LOAD LOAD em’ up!
Plenty of Excellent DD hosted out there on social media sites and www.Bravatek.com.
Dr. Cellucci was an early pioneer in advancing the field of nanotechnology in American science, engineering and manufacturing. He was instrumental in progressing America’s nanotechnology agenda through his bi-partisan work with Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and many leaders in the United States Senate. His contributions made possible the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) signed by President George W. Bush in 2004 that added over $3.9 billion to the federal budget specific to the advancement of nanotechnology. Dr. Cellucci was active in discovering and fostering strategic partnerships that brought nanotechnology into a wide array of consumer products – transitioning Zyvex Corporation, as its President and Chief Operating Officer from a nanotech technology-push to market-driven enterprise.
Yummy Bravatek shares, my Favorite!
$BVTK
There’s a lot of discussion about “The Wall” these days for our southern border. Let’s step back and analyze if that’s the real issue…Why a wall? Why not a wall? What’s the real problem? Many questions—but not a lot of satisfying answers… Let me tell you a little story…
It really didn’t take even my first full day as the Chief Commercialization Officer of the United States to realize that most folks in government often rush to solutions—rather than understand the problem. And truth be told—it’s not much better in the private sector. If you think about it, we can point to many examples in both our professional and private lives where the lack of communication or unclear terminology has created misunderstandings, problems and myriad other issues. Effective communication is critical in the cost-effective and efficient interactions between various parties seeking a mutually beneficial relationship or partnership—for example—the U.S. government’s need to protect its people and property.
At every step of product development, it is critical to understand and meet user needs.
Developing requirements to guide effective product development is not a trivial effort; but with proper planning, dedication and communication, successful product development can yield measurable positive results and provide DHS (U.S. Department of Homeland Security) operating components, first responders, CIKR (Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources) owners and operators and other stakeholders with resources necessary to carry out their mission-critical objectives to protect our nation.
The initial phase of product realization is a mission needs assessment. This assessment should be conducted in relation to the overall mission for an organization. This exercise identifies capabilities needed to perform required functions, highlights deficiencies in a functional capability and documents the results of the analysis. Some of these capabilities may already be addressable with existing products, systems or services currently accessible by an organization. Analysis may also show that material solutions may not be necessary to solve a problem, as issues may be resolved through resource redistribution, staffing adjustments, standards development and other actions that do not require the fielding of new technologies. Additionally, a mission needs assessment serves to identify deficiencies in current and projected capabilities. In the event that current products are not able to address a particular capability; a capability gap exists. Briefly, capability gaps are defined by the difference between current operational capabilities and those necessary capabilities needed to perform mission-critical objectives that remain unsatisfied. Capability gaps must be listed in terms of an overall need to perform a specific task and should avoid explaining how that task should be achieved. Capability gaps that are discovered and articulated from a mission needs assessment form the foundation of solving problems.
For example, faced with the problem of potential intruders to a sensitive facility, we might define the requirement as “build a wall,” whereas the real requirement is “detect, thwart, and capture intruders.” Our wall might “thwart” intruders (or might not, if they’re adept at tunneling), but it would not detect them or facilitate their capture. In short, the solution would not solve the problem. See Figure 1.
The robust capability gap to “detect, thwart, and capture intruders” includes no preconceived solutions and prompts us to analyze alternative conceptual solutions and choose the best.
One way to ensure that we are defining a problem, rather than a solution, is to begin the statement of the requirement with the phrase “we need the capability to …” It’s nearly impossible to complete this sentence with a solution (“a wall”), and much easier to complete the sentence with a problem (“capability to detect intruders”). Capability gaps and requirements should address what a system should do, rather than how to do it. This approach is sometimes called capability-based planning. It is a very simple, yet powerful concept.
Properly defining clear and concise capability gaps is a necessary first step in product realization. This high-level understanding of a problem is a key part in the communication of needs. One may find that capability gaps are oftentimes common for multiple cross-sections of DHS operating components and supporting elements such as the first responder community and private sector critical infrastructure owner/operators.
Why Requirements?
Discovering Capability Gaps that exist within a particular functional area are paramount. These broad descriptions of department-level identified mission needs that are not met given current products and/or standards catalog opportunities for enhanced mission effectiveness or address deficiencies in national capability. However, capability gaps are just the first step in providing solutions to mission-critical needs. Operational requirements bring detailed information to support the capability gaps and define actionable information through detailed definitions of the problems, which need to be further delineated into technical requirements.
A requirement is an attribute of a product, service or system necessary to produce an outcome(s) that satisfies the needs of a person, group or organization. Requirements therefore define “the problem.” In contrast, “the solution” is defined by technical specifications.
Defining requirements is the process of determining what to make before making it. Requirements definition creates a method in which appropriate decisions about product or system functionality and performance can be made before investing the time and money to develop it. Understanding requirements early removes a great deal of guesswork in the planning stages and helps to ensure that the end-users and product developers are “on the same page.”
Requirements provide criteria against which solutions can be tested and evaluated. They offer detailed metrics that can be used to objectively measure a possible solution’s effectiveness, ensuring informed purchasing decisions on products, systems or services that achieve the stated operational goals. A detailed requirements analysis can uncover hidden requirements as well as discover common problems across programs and various DHS operating components. Detailed operational requirements will guide product development so that solutions’ specifications actively solve the stated problems.
We could save ourselves a lot of work if we jump straight to “the solution” without defining “the problem.” Why don’t we do that? Because if we take that shortcut we are likely to find that our solution may not be the best choice among possible alternatives or, even worse, we’re likely to find that our “solution” doesn’t even solve the problem!
Defining requirements and adhering to developing solutions to address those needs is often referred to as “requirements-pull.” In this situation, user requirements drive product development and guide the path forward as the requirements dictate. This is a powerful circumstance in which fulfilling requirements becomes the central focus of product development and no possible solution is disregarded given it facilitates addressing the stated operational requirements.
At the other extreme from the “requirements-pull” or “market-pull”, approach is “technology push.” Here we start with a solution (perhaps a new technology) and see what problems it might enable us to solve. The danger in this approach is to become enamored of “the solution” and neglect to ensure that it actually solves a problem. With technology push, it is likely that actual user requirements may be modified, or even ignored in order to “force-fit” the desired solution. A historical example was the product known as Picture Phone introduced (and discontinued) in the 1960s when the advance of telecommunications technology first made possible the transmission and display of video as well as voice. Picture Phone, which allowed telephone users to see each other during a call, was a technological success but a market disaster. It turned out that callers generally don’t want to be seen, as a bit of unbiased market analysis would have disclosed.
Technology push should not be ignored, but if the goal is successful transition to the field with acceptable risk, the technology being pushed must be compared to alternative solutions against a real set of user requirements.
Aside from assuring that the “solution” actually solves the “problem,” requirements- driven design has a further advantage in that the requirements provide criteria against which a product’s successful development can be measured. Specifically, if the product was developed to address a set of quantified operational requirements, then its success is measured by Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) to validate that an end-user can use the product and achieve the stated operational goals.
Prior to OT&E, it is common practice to subject products to Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E). The purpose of DT&E is to verify that the product meets its technical specifications, which are the engineers’ interpretation of the operational requirements. Such DT&E does not obviate the need for OT&E, which validates that the engineers’ solution is not only technically successfully but also represents a successful interpretation of the end users’ needs, satisfying the original operational requirements (not just the technical specifications) when operated by representative users.
Often requirements are stated in terms of “threshold values” and “objective values,” where the “objective value” is the desired performance and the “threshold value” is the minimum acceptable performance. This formalism is useful in allowing stretch goals to be asserted without saddling the system development with unacceptable risk.
The Requirements Hierarchy and Traceability
To reiterate the definitions above, the documents that govern product realization include requirements, which define the problem, and specifications, which define the solution. Nevertheless, the hierarchy of requirements and specifications is more complex than that simple dichotomy, as previously discussed and revisited in Figure 2.
The Hierarchy is divided into two domains, operational requirements and technical requirements, highlighted in yellow and blue in the figure, representing the “problem space” and the “solution space” respectively. The DHS stakeholder, representing the end users in the field (the operators), is also responsible for all operational requirements, from the top-level mission requirements to the detailed system-level operational requirements. It is important to articulate these operational requirements in detail to avoid misunderstandings later in the product development life cycle. A system developer is responsible for translating the operational requirements into a system solution, documented in a hierarchy of technical specifications.
The highest-level type of technical “specification” is actually called a performance “requirement.” A performance requirement actually represents a bridge from operational requirements to the engineering interpretation of those requirements. Put another way, in the course of developing a new system it is necessary to transform the system operational requirements, which are stated from a given Operating Component’s perspective as required outcomes of system action, into a set of system performance requirements, which are stated in terms of engineering characteristics.
Working through the requirements hierarchy, requirements development is the process of decomposing the problems broadly outlined in the capability gaps gleaned from the mission needs assessment.
The requirements and specifications are described below, first those that define the problem and then those that define the solution:
Problem Definition
Mission Needs Statement (MNS)/Capability Gap is required by the DHS Acquisition Review Process (Management Directive 102-01) and is developed by the DHS sponsor (Custom Borders Protection, for example) who represents the end users .MNS provides a high-level description of the mission need (or, equivalently, capability gap), and is used to justify the initiation of an Acquisition program.
Operational Requirements Document (ORD) is also required by the DHS Acquisition Review Process and, like the MNS, is developed by the DHS stakeholder. The ORD specifies operational requirements and a concept of operations (CONOPS), written from the point of view of the end The ORD is independent of any particular implementation, should not refer to any specific technologies and does not commit the developers to a design. A well written ORD states the problem that must be solved along with the necessary capabilities that a system must perform.
Solution Definition
Performance Requirements represent a bridge between the operationally oriented view of the system defined in the ORD and an engineering- oriented view required to define the solution. Performance requirements are an interpretation, not a replacement of operational requirements. Performance requirements define the functions that the system and its subsystems must perform to achieve the operational objectives and define the performance parameters for each function. These definitions are in engineering rather than operational terms.
Functional Specifications define the system solution functionally, though not Sometimes called the “system specification” or “A-Spec,” these specifications define functions at the system, subsystem, and component level including:
Configuration, organization, and interfaces between system elements
Performance characteristics and compatibility requirements
Human engineering
Security and safety
Reliability, maintainability and availability
Support requirements such as shipping, handling, storage, training and special facilities
Design Specifications convert the functional specifications of what the system is to do into a specification of how the required functions are to be implemented in hardware and The design specifications therefore govern the materialization of the system components.
Material Specifications are an example of lower-level supporting specifications that support the higher-level specifications. Material specifications define the required properties of materials and parts used to fabricate the system. Other supporting specifications include Process Specifications (defining required properties of fabrication processes such as soldering and welding) and Product Specifications (defining required properties of non-developmental items to be procured commercially).
Characteristics of Good Requirements
Requirements engineering is difficult and time-consuming, but must be done well if the final product or system is to be judged by the end users as successful. From the International Council of Systems Engineers (INCOSE) Requirements Working Group1, here are eight attributes of good requirements:
Necessary: Can the system meet prioritized, real needs without it? If yes, the
Requirement isn’t necessary.
Verifiable: Can one ensure that the requirement is met in the system? If not, the requirement should be removed or revised.
Unambiguous: Can the requirement be interpreted in more than one way? If yes, the requirement should be clarified or removed. Ambiguous or poorly worded requirements can lead to serious misunderstandings and needless rework.
Complete: Are all conditions under which the requirement applies stated? In addition, does the specification include all known requirements?
Consistent: Can the requirement be met without conflicting with any other requirement? If not, the requirement should be revised or removed.
Traceable: Is the origin (source) of the requirement known, and is there a clear path from the requirement back to its origin?
Concise: Is the requirement stated simply and clearly?
Standard constructs: Requirements are stated as imperative needs using “shall.” Statements indicating “goals” or using the words “will” or “should” are not imperatives.
Developing Operational Requirements (ORDs): Customer Input
So far, we’ve discussed operational requirements but have not provided any insight into how to develop them. In an effort to provide a basic framework for the articulation and documentation of operational requirements, the operational requirements document (ORD) was created. ORDs provide a clear definition and articulation of a given problem, providing several layers of information that comprise the overall problem. Using resources such as this book and the accompanying template, we have tried to simplify and streamline the process of communicating requirements. ORDs can be used in Acquisition, Procurement, Internal Development, Commercialization and Outreach Programs – any situation that dictates detailed requirements (e.g. RFQ, BAA, RFP, RFI, etc.). It’s clear to see that it’s cost-effective and efficient for both DHS and all of its stakeholders to communicate needs clearly and effectively.
Let’s first look at the contents of a typical Operational Requirements Document (ORD) shown in Figure 3.
The complexity of the intended system and its operational context will govern the required level of detail in the ORD. The most difficult sections to develop are typically Section 4.0, which describes the capabilities required of the system to be developed, and Section 1.6, which describes the operational and support concepts.\
There is no “silver bullet” to solve the potential challenges in developing an ORD, but since the issues are universal, there is a wealth of literature that offers approaches to requirements development. As an example, here are nine requirements-elicitation techniques described in the Business Analyst Body of Knowledge (from the International Institute of Business Analysis).
Brainstorming
Purpose
An excellent way of eliciting many creative ideas for an area of interest. Structured brainstorming produces numerous creative ideas.
Strengths
Able to elicit many ideas in a short time period.
Non-judgmental environment enables outside-the-box thinking.
Weaknesses
Dependent on participants’ creativity.
Document Analysis
Purpose
Used if the objective is to gather details of the “As Is” environment such as existing standard procedures or attributes that need to be included in a new system.
Strengths
Not starting from a blank page.
Leveraging existing materials to discover and/or confirm requirements.
A means to crosscheck requirements from other elicitation techniques such as interviews, job shadowing, surveys or focus groups.
Weaknesses
Limited to “as-is” perspective.
Existing documentation may not be up-to-date or valid.
Can be a time-consuming and even tedious process to locate the relevant information.
Focus Group
Purpose
A means to elicit ideas and attitudes about a specific product, service or opportunity in an interactive group environment. The participants share their impressions, preferences and needs, guided by a moderator.
Strengths
Ability to elicit data from a group of people in a single session saves time and costs as compared to conducting individual interviews with the same number of people.
Effective for learning people’s attitudes, experiences and desires.
Active discussion and the ability to ask others questions creates an environment where participants can consider their personal view in relation to other perspectives.
Weaknesses
In the group setting, participants may be concerned about issues of trust, or may be unwilling to discuss sensitive or personal topics.
Data collected (what people say) may not be consistent with how people actually behave.
If the group is too homogenous, the group’s responses may not represent the complete set of requirements.
A skilled moderator is needed to manage the group interactions and discussions.
It may be difficult to schedule the group for the same date and time.
Interface Analysis
Purpose
An interface is a connection between two components. Most systems require one or more interfaces with external parties, systems or devices. Interface analysis is initiated by project managers and analysts to reach agreement with the stakeholders on what interfaces are needed. Subsequent analysis uncovers the detailed requirements for each interface.
Strengths
The elicitation of the interfaces’ functional requirements early in the system life cycle provides valuable details for project management:
Impact on delivery date. Knowing what interfaces are needed, their complexity and testing needs enables more accurate project planning and potential savings in time and cost.
Collaboration with other systems or projects. If the interface to an existing system, product or device and the interface already exist, it may not be easily changed. If the interface is new, then the ownership, development and testing of the interface needs to be addressed and coordinated in both projects’ plan. In either case, eliciting the interface requirements will require negotiation and cooperation between the owning systems.
Weaknesses
Does not provide an understanding of the total system or operational concept since this technique only exposes the inputs, outputs and key data elements related to the interfaces.
Interview
Purpose
A systematic approach to elicit information from a person or group of people in an informal or formal setting by asking relevant questions and documenting the responses.
Strengths
Encourages participation and establishes rapport with the stakeholder.
Simple, direct technique that can be used in varying situations.
Allows the interviewer and participant to have full discussions and explanations of the questions and answers.
Enables observations of non-verbal behavior.
The interviewer can ask follow-up and probing questions to confirm own understanding.
Maintain focus using clear objectives for the interview that are agreed upon by all participants and can be met in the time allotted.
Weaknesses
Interviews are not an ideal means of reaching consensus across a group of stakeholders.
Requires considerable commitment and involvement of the participants.
Training is required to conduct good interviews. Unstructured interviews, especially, require special skills. Facilitation/virtual facilitation and active listening are a few of them.
Depth of follow-on questions may be dependent on the interviewer’s knowledge of the operational domain.
Transcription and analysis of interview data can be complex and expensive.
Resulting documentation is subject to interviewer’s interpretation.
Observation
Purpose
A means to elicit requirements by assessing the operational environment. This technique is appropriate when documenting details about current operations or if the project intends to enhance or change a current operational concept.
Strengths
Provides a realistic and practical insight into field operations by getting a hands-on feel for current operations.
Elicits details of informal communication and ways people actually work around the system that may not be documented anywhere.
Weaknesses
Only possible for existing operations.
Could be time-consuming.
May be disruptive to the person being shadowed.
Unusual exceptions and critical situations that happen infrequently may not occur during the observation.
May not well work if current operations involve a lot of intellectual work or other work that is not easily observable.
Prototyping
Purpose
Prototyping, when used as an elicitation technique, aims to uncover and visualize user requirements before the system is designed or developed.
Strengths
Supports users who are more comfortable and effective at articulating their needs by using pictures or hands-on prototypes, as prototyping lets them “see” the future system’s interface.
A prototype allows for early user interaction and feedback.
A throwaway prototype is an inexpensive means to quickly uncover and confirm user interface requirements.
A revolutionary prototype can demonstration what is feasible with existing technology, and where there may be technical gaps.
An evolutionary prototype provides a vehicle for designers and developers to learn about the users’ interface needs and to evolve system requirements.
Weaknesses
Depending on the complexity of the target system, using prototyping to elicit requirements can take considerable time if the process is bogged down by the “how’s” rather than “what’s”.
Assumptions about the underlying technology may need to be made in order to present a starting prototype.
A prototype may lead users to set unrealistic expectations of the delivered system’s performance, reliability and usability characteristics.
Requirements Workshop
Purpose
A requirements workshop is a structured way to capture requirements. A workshop may be used to scope, discover, define, prioritize and reach closure on requirements for the target system. Well-run workshops are considered one of the most effective ways to deliver high quality requirements quickly. They promote trust, mutual understanding, and strong communications among the project stakeholders and project team, produce deliverables that structure, and guide future analysis.
Strengths
A workshop can be a means to elicit detailed requirements in a relatively short period of time.
A workshop provides a means for stakeholders to collaborate, make decisions and gain a mutual understanding of the requirements.
Workshop costs are often lower than the cost of performing multiple interviews.
A requirements workshop enables the participants to work together to reach consensus, which is typically a cheaper and faster approach than doing serial interviews as interviews may yield conflicting requirements and the effort needed to resolve those conflicts across all interviewees can be very costly.
Feedback is immediate, if the facilitator’s interpretation of requirements is fed back immediately to the stakeholders and confirmed.
Weaknesses
Due to stakeholders availability it may be difficult to schedule the workshop.
The success of the workshop is highly dependent on the expertise of the facilitator and knowledge of the participants.
Requirements workshops that involve too many participants can slow down the workshop process thus negatively affecting the schedule. Conversely, collecting input from too few participants can lead to overlooking requirements that are important to users, or to specifying requirements that do not represent the needs of the majority of the users.
Survey/Questionnaire
Purpose
A means of eliciting information from many people, anonymously, in a relatively short time. A survey can collect information about customers, products, operational practices and attitudes. A survey is often referred to as a questionnaire.
Strengths
When using ‘closed-ended’ questions, effective in obtaining quantitative data for use in statistical analysis.
When using open-ended questions, the survey results may yield insights and opinions not easily obtainable through other elicitation techniques.
Does not typically require significant time from the responders.
Effective and efficient when stakeholders are not located at one place.
May result in large number of responses.
Quick and relatively inexpensive to administer.
Weaknesses
Use of open-ended questions requires more analysis.
To achieve unbiased-results, specialized skills in statistical sampling methods are needed when the decision has been made to survey a sample subset.
Some questions may be left unanswered or answered incorrectly due to their ambiguous nature.
May require follow up questions or more survey iterations depending on the answers provided.
Not well suited for collecting information on actual behaviors.
Addressing Requirements Versus Proposing Solutions
When employing efforts to elicit and explain requirements using any of these methods, it is imperative to steadfastly avoid requirements that define potential solutions or otherwise restrict the potential solution space. Again, requirements only deal with the problem at hand and do not discuss the preferred or desired tool or way to go about solving the problem. Any standards or limitations that a system must address within a given scenario are important to mention within an ORD, but entire solution sets may not be discounted as potential scientific advances may make certain technologies feasible.
While it is necessary and useful to understand the current state-of-the-art within a given technology space and knowledge about potential solutions that may already be in development, requirements are meant to simply define problems. Properly drafted requirements allow for a variety of solutions, each with their own advantages and disadvantages, for consideration as potential ways to address a problem. Solution- agnostic requirements prevent limiting and defining the outcome of product realization. Within the context of the Operational Requirements Document Template described in detail below, the solution definition aspect of the Requirements Hierarchy is purposefully not addressed. This is useful given that an open and honest review of one’s needs might show that a preconceived notion about a desired solution may turn out not to be the best solution, or that modifications to existing products or services may be necessary and useful to end users.
The following insert provides the Operational Requirements Document template. This template guides you through drafting a new ORD by describing the information that should be captured in each section of the document. This template is useful in organizing and delineating the problem to be solved. Several important topics are covered by the template and it assists in presenting many questions that must be addressed in order to articulate fully and clearly the desired outcome from deploying a system to address a problem.
Operational Requirements Document Template
General Description of Operational Capability
In this section, summarize the capability gap which the product or system is intended to address, describe the overall mission area, describe the proposed system solution, and provide a summary of any supporting analyses. Additionally, briefly describe the operational and support concepts.
Capability Gap
Describe the analysis and rationale for acquiring a new product or system, and identify the DHS Component, which contains or represents the end users. Also, name the Capstone IPT, if any, which identified the capability gap.
Overall Mission Area Description
Define and describe the overall mission area to which the capability gap pertains, including its users and its scope.
Description of the Proposed System
Describe the proposed product or system. Describe how the product or system will provide the capabilities and functional improvements needed to address the capability gap. Do not describe a specific technology or system solution. Instead, describe a conceptual solution for illustrative purposes.
Supporting Analysis
Describe the analysis that supports the proposed system. If a formal study was performed, identify the study and briefly provide a summary of results.
Mission the Proposed System Will Accomplish
Define the missions that the proposed system will be tasked to accomplish.
Operational and Support Concept
Concept of Operations
Briefly describe the concept of operations for the system. How will the system be used, and what is its organizational setting? It is appropriate to include a graphic that depicts the system and its operation. Also, describe the system’s interoperability requirements with other systems.
Support Concept
Briefly describe the support concept for the system. How will the system (hardware and software) be maintained? Who will maintain it? How, where, and by whom will spare parts be provisioned? How, where, and by whom will operators be trained?
Threat
If the system is intended as a countermeasure to a threat, summarize the threat to be countered and the projected threat environment.
Existing System Shortfalls
Describe why existing systems cannot meet current or projected requirements. Describe what new capabilities are needed to address the gap between current capabilities and required capabilities.
Capabilities Required
Operational Performance Parameters
Identify operational performance parameters (capabilities and characteristics) required for the proposed system. Articulate the requirements in output-oriented and measurable terms. Use Threshold/Objective format and provide criteria and rationale for each requirement.
Key Performance Parameters (KPPs)
The KPPs are those attributes or characteristics of a system that are considered critical or essential. Failure to meet a KPP threshold value could be the basis to reject a system solution.
System
Mission Scenarios
Describe mission scenarios in terms of mission profiles, employment tactics, and environmental conditions.
System Performance Parameters
Identify system performance parameters. Identify KPPs by placing an asterisk in front of the parameter description.
Interoperability
Identify all requirements for the system to provide data, information, materiel, and services to and accept the same from other systems, and to use the data, information, materiel, and services so exchanged to enable them to operate effectively together.
Human Interface Requirements
Discuss broad cognitive, physical, and sensory requirements for the operators, maintainers, or support personnel that contribute to, or constrain, total system performance. Provide broad staffing constraints for operators, maintainers, and support personnel.
Logistics and Readiness
Describe the requirements for the system to be supportable and available for operations. Provide performance parameters for availability, reliability, system maintainability, and software maintainability.
Other System Characteristics
Characteristics that tend to be design, cost, and risk drivers.
System Support
Establish support objectives for initial and full operational capability. Discuss interfacing systems, transportation and facilities, and standardization and interoperability. Describe the support approach including configuration management, repair, scheduled maintenance, support operations, software support, and user support (such as training and help desk).
Maintenance
Identify the types of maintenance to be performed and who will perform the maintenance. Describe methods for upgrades and technology insertions. Also, address post-development software support requirements.
Supply
Describe the approach to supplying field operators and maintenance technicians with necessary tools, spares, diagnostic equipment, and manuals.
Support Equipment
Define the standard support equipment to be used by the system. Discuss any need for special test equipment or software development environment.
Training
Describe how the training will ensure that users are certified as capable of operating and using the proposed system.
Transportation and Facilities
Describe how the system will be transported to the field, identifying any lift constraints. Identify facilities needed for staging and training.
Force Structure
Estimate the number of systems or subsystems needed, including spares and training units. Identify organizations and units that will employ the systems being developed and procured, estimating the number of users in each organization or unit.
Schedule
To the degree that schedule is a requirement, define target dates for system availability. If a distinction is made between Initial Capability and Full Operational Capability, clarify the difference between the two in terms of system capability and/or numbers of fielded systems.
System Affordability
Identify a threshold/objective target price to the user at full-rate production. If price is a KPP, include it in the section on KPPs above.
*Please Note: See some of my published books for a full set of real-world example ORDs that clearly illustrate how to effectively use this template and other previously described methods.
The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by Homeland Security Today, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints in support of securing our homeland. To submit a piece for consideration, email HSTodayMag@gtscoalition.com. Our editorial guidelines can be found here.
Hope everyone got filled today!
Can’t miss the rocket ship!
Tomorrow is the day!
Get your Depends and a bucket ready!
Either way it’s going to fly and I’m going to Buy!
Bravatek BOOM coming SOON!
Too bad the market is closed today.
I need to buy more shares of Bravatek!
I just can’t get enough Tommy Technologies in my portfolio.
If you invested $100,000 in Bravatek and accumulated 10,000 shares. You would own 1% of the company today. And if the value of Bravatek was found to be $100mil, in April, your investment would become worth near $10 Million. Add the P/E Ratio and your looking like a MEGA Rockstar off an OTC stock everyone said was shit except a handful of people.
So, can you Afford not to own a few thousand worth of this?
Me thinks not.
GO TEAM BRAVATEK!!!
What do you think will happen to the PPS when it comes out those dollars have been put into hard assessments totaling much more than the $30mil?
I see a bunch of Joint Ventures set to erupt record earnings for creating innovative technologies to fill capability gaps for the US Federal Govt. VIA Tommy’s DHS S&T Capstone IPT and SECURE programs.
Are You trying to convince everyone the First US Commercialization Officer to the WhiteHouse hasn’t been setting the biggest WIN WIN WIN in History!
Bravatek is a global security platform company with revenue and soon to be announced major milestones.
Revenue Categories listed below based on Bravatek working with Integrated Product Teams:
Requirements/Capability Capstone IPTs
Information Sharing/Mgmt Border Security Chem/Bio
Maritime Security
OIA
OOC
CBP/ICE
IP/OHA
End User
Counter IED
Acquisition
Borders/ Acquisition Maritime
USCG Chem/Bio Acquisition
Guardsmen
Cargo Security
CBP
CS&C Acquisition
Infrastructure/ Geophysical/ C2I
TSA Acquisition
Explosives
OBP/USSS Acquisition
End-User
Explosives (Human Factors / Infrastructure Geophysical)
Acquisition/ Policy
Borders/ Maritime
C2I
Acquisition
Borders/ Maritime
Cyber Security
Inspector/Ag ents
Transportation Security
Infrastructure Owners/Operators
People Screening
End-User
Infrastructure Protection
Officers/Industry
SCO/CIS
Incident Management
IP
Interoperability
FEMA/OEC
Infrastructure/ Acquisition C2I Geophysical
First Responders
Prep & Response
FEMA
Acquisition
Human Factors
Acquisition
Acquisition
Infrastructure/ Geophysical
Yes, Tom has confirmed Bravatek is working with the IPTs!
Good luck Everyone!
God Bless!!!
Added again today. Border Security funding coming!
New Contracts Possible!
Milestone news markers possible with Patent status, 5G, and Map agreement revenues.
Lots of positive to look forward to here.
Govt Interoperability model through DHS S&T leads me to see greater potential here than CSRA for comparison of unique business structure for getting covert tech to govt using public money.
Tyson’s corner is a place where Tom has spent some time. Fruition from any venture out of that neck of the woods can be extremely lucrative as well.
BVTK for Life!
Let’s examine this together, YES!!!
Department of Homeland Security gets its protocol for creating products to fill capability gaps through Dr Thomas Cellucci’s work he completed while acting as first Commercialization officer to the Whitehouse. While there, he wrote....
DHS-S&T, through the Capstone Integrated Product Team (IPT) process1, ensures that quality, efficacious products are developed in close alignment with customer needs. The Capstone IPT process is the framework that determines that developed capabilities meet operational needs, analyzes gaps in strategic needs and capabilities, determines operational requirements, and develops programs and projects to close capability gaps and expand mission competencies. This process is a DHS customer-led forum through which the identification of functional capability gaps and the prioritization of these gaps across the Department are formalized. The IPTs oversee the research and development efforts of DHS-S&T and enable the proper allocation of resources to the highest priority needs established by the DHS operating components and first responders.
Capstone IPTs bring together S&T division heads, acquisition partners and end- users (Operating Components, field agents and supporting First Responders – customers of DHS) involved in the Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E) and acquisition activities. Working together, the IPT identifies, evaluates and prioritizes the necessary requirements to complete missions successfully. IPTs also assess the technological and system readiness of products that will ultimately be deployed into the
field. Figure 1 shows the organization of a Capstone IPT. The formation of the IPT at an early stage allows key stakeholders to identify and address critical capability gaps. Each Capstone IPT has a DHS operating component chair or co-chairs. The chair/co-chair, representing the end-users of the delivered Enabling Homeland Capabilities (EHCs), or suite of technologies needed to close a capability gap, engage throughout the process to identify, define and prioritize current and future requirements and ensure that planned technology and/or product transitions and acquisition programs, commercialization efforts and standards development are optimally suited to their operational requirements. Operating components, field agents, first responders and other non-captive end-users with an interest in the core functional areas of an IPT are welcome to participate and contribute throughout the Capstone IPT process.
Figure 1 (a) This diagram shows the structure of the Capstone IPT model with (b) the models’ output
DHS Management (Acquisition)
S&T Customer
T&E
End User
S&T Provider
Identify Capability Gaps
Validate T&E Offer Technical Future Solutions
Industry Board of Directors Model Consensus-driven Process
(a)
Provide End User Perspective
End Result :
Prioritized Investments in S&T
(b)
Acquisition Plan
functions carried out by each IPT member.
The Capstone IPTs are structured to focus on functional, department level requirements, articulated as capability gaps, and deal with programmatic and technology issues within the six S&T divisions. Capstone IPTs have been created across twelve major Homeland Security core functional areas: Information Sharing/Management, Cyber Security, People Screening, Border Security, Chemical/Biological Defense, Maritime Security, Counter-Improvised Explosive Devices, Transportation Security, Incident Management, Interoperability, Cargo Security and Infrastructure Protection. Each Capstone IPT is chaired by senior leadership from a DHS operating component with needs that correspond to a specific functional area. All DHS operating components with an interest in a particular Capstone IPT are invited to send a representative to participate as an IPT member. See Figure 2 for the captive members for each IPT.
And a lot more stuff he wrote. Tom has said Bravatek works with the Integrated Product Teams!!!
Bravatek Depends On, Check!
I only paid $6 for mine.
Slap that Ask!
Buying Buying Buying!
Rocket Ship coming!
What’s going on with the trades?
We closed yesterday at .46 with my order unfilled for 800 at .50. Then, The ticker change cancels my unfilled order so had To place again in the morning. You can see I only end up with 30 shares of my 800 order yet others bought at .42 earlier today? How?
I ended up buying at .56 after getting frustrated seeing those lower orders go through. Did those trades really happen even? Are some MMS just handing them back and forth for less so the real price isn’t reflected?
Using Ameritrade platform.
Ima Keep Buying!
Bravatek Unite!
YeeeeHaaawwww!!!!!!
More Shares for me!
I’m Buying Buying Buying!!!!
And no, not any of your bullshit, just the Global security platform set to secure the safety of the world for generations to come!
Nation States First with Border Security brought to you by the Secure Program collaborative effort of Major UC colleges home and abroad.
If you can’t see what happened to Kaspersky while being supplied to uncle s by Bravatek, you will never see what I see.
Don’t worry Bravatekians! Tommy already hit the ball so far out of the park, that there’s some who can’t imagine the tremendous accomplishments occurring as a result.
Stay tuned because the show is just getting started!
Bravatek is a global security platform company with revenue and soon to be announced major milestones!
Put on your BVTK Depends and be ready!
Me too! Tom said it’s coming soon.
Going for another 2,000 shares this week!
Hahaha! Nice!
Loading Loading Loading!!!
Keep giving me cheap shares!
You guys are great!
Buy all you can or sell to me!
I win either way!
Special Programs master has this in the bag!
Bwahahaha!
Go Team Bravatek!
BSC Bitcon is Four one Five! Get it! Working for 45!
Buy the Holy Poops out of this ticker because there will never be another opportunity like this! Take my word for it!
Never before has the world been at such a turning point, so own the solution and have some shares of Bravatek in your account for the most massive flip ever conceived of!
The facts I’m basing this off of come from the Department of Homeland Security Capstone Integrated Product Team protocols for technology gap fulfillment and creation as written by the First US Commercialization officer, Dr Thomas Cellucci.
America isn’t America without borders! Just like your firewall protects your computer, Bravatek protected the fabric of the existence of the free world. Yes, all based on what’s been written by Tommy and DHS along with Congress and the WhiteHouse! I can’t make this stuff up!
I read it all out of text books!
Yes! I’m a Super Nerd! Now go get some before the day ends because I’ve got a tingly feeling things are going to change!
If you don’t know by know, you will never ever know.