Requirements & architecture chaos
Situation
“Our requirements have grown historically — nobody has the full picture, and the architecture no longer holds.”
The requirements landscape has grown historically and is inconsistent. A shared view of system and safety architecture is missing — everyone sees the system differently. Structural concept weaknesses regularly drive late and expensive design changes. Safety mechanisms are not consistently anchored in architecture and operational behaviour. The foundation simply no longer holds — neither for integration nor for series operation.
These two offerings address the situation most directly. We recommend requesting both — together they form the most robust picture.
Clarity on viability, interfaces and critical architectural decisions.
Compact, structured evaluation of system and safety architecture including key interfaces, failure paths and plausibility of safety mechanisms. Structural gaps, unclear assumptions and risks are surfaced early — before they drive costly rework in later phases.
Transparency on structure, consistency and continuity of requirements.
Analysis of structure, consistency and continuity of requirements through architecture and test — including safety-relevant parts. Result: a clear picture of where traceability holds and where it needs reinforcement.
Useful to add depending on the project situation. Drop into the cart if needed.
High-level assessment of safety concepts and compliance risks.
A condensed view of your safety concept, safety artefacts and targeted next steps.
Focus on fault sources, risks and robustness gaps during integration.
