#consequence , error potental , percent , bars 1 , 1 , 1% , a.................................................. 1 , 2 , 7% , aaaa............................................... 1 , 3 , 3% , aa................................................. 1 , 4 , 0% , ................................................... 2 , 1 , 5% , aaa................................................ 2 , 2 , 17% , aaaaaaaaa.......................................... 2 , 3 , 12% , aaaaaa............................................. 2 , 4 , 1% , a.................................................. 3 , 1 , 2% , a.................................................. 3 , 2 , 12% , aaaaaa............................................. 3 , 3 , 6% , aaa................................................ 3 , 4 , 0% , ................................................... 4 , 1 , 4% , aa................................................. 4 , 2 , 13% , aaaaaaa............................................ 4 , 3 , 5% , aaa................................................ 4 , 4 , 1% , a.................................................. 5 , 1 , 0% , ................................................... 5 , 2 , 3% , aa................................................. 5 , 3 , 1% , a.................................................. Human Safety 0 56 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...................... Human Safety 1 34 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa................................. Human Safety 2 2 % a................................................. Human Safety 3 0 % .................................................. Human Safety 4 4 % aa................................................ Human Safety 5 1 % .................................................. Asset Safety 1 66 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa................. Asset Safety 2 6 % aaa............................................... Asset Safety 3 9 % aaaa.............................................. Asset Safety 4 9 % aaaa.............................................. Asset Safety 5 6 % aaa............................................... Performance 1 18 % aaaaaaaaa......................................... Performance 2 9 % aaaa.............................................. Performance 3 42 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa............................. Performance 4 16 % aaaaaaaa.......................................... Performance 5 12 % aaaaaa............................................ Experience 1 43 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa............................. Experience 2 17 % aaaaaaaa.......................................... Experience 3 20 % aaaaaaaaaa........................................ Experience 4 13 % aaaaaa............................................ Experience 5 4 % aa................................................ Development Organization 0.5 1 % .................................................. Development Organization 1 8 % aaaa.............................................. Development Organization 2 32 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.................................. Development Organization 3 1 % .................................................. Development Organization 4 45 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa............................ Development Organization 5 11 % aaaaa............................................. Use of Standards 1 50 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa......................... Use of Standards 2 24 % aaaaaaaaaaaa...................................... Use of Standards 3 21 % aaaaaaaaaa........................................ Use of Standards 5 4 % aa................................................ Use of CM 1 65 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.................. Use of CM 2 27 % aaaaaaaaaaaaa..................................... Use of CM 3 6 % aaa............................................... CMM Level 2 0 % .................................................. CMM Level 3 75 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa............. CMM Level 4 19 % aaaaaaaaa......................................... CMM Level 5 4 % aa................................................ Use of Formal Reviews 1 64 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.................. Use of Formal Reviews 2 33 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.................................. Use of Formal Reviews 3 1 % .................................................. Use of Defect Tracking System 1 34 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa................................. Use of Defect Tracking System 2 33 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.................................. Use of Defect Tracking System 3 30 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa................................... Use of Defect Tracking System 4 0 % .................................................. Use of Risk Management System 1 18 % aaaaaaaaa......................................... Use of Risk Management System 2 45 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa............................ Use of Risk Management System 3 36 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa................................ Re-use Approach 1 57 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...................... Re-use Approach 2 7 % aaa............................................... Re-use Approach 3 11 % aaaaa............................................. Re-use Approach 4 11 % aaaaa............................................. Re-use Approach 5 12 % aaaaaa............................................ Artifact Maturity 1 64 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.................. Artifact Maturity 2 20 % aaaaaaaaaa........................................ Artifact Maturity 3 15 % aaaaaaa........................................... Complexity 1 30 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa................................... Complexity 2 11 % aaaaa............................................. Complexity 3 40 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.............................. Complexity 4 12 % aaaaaa............................................ Complexity 5 4 % aa................................................ Degree of Innovation 1 84 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa........ Degree of Innovation 2 11 % aaaaa............................................. Degree of Innovation 3 2 % a................................................. Degree of Innovation 4 1 % .................................................. Size of System 1 6 % aaa............................................... Size of System 2 30 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa................................... Size of System 3 56 % aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...................... Size of System 4 6 % aaa............................................... 4.5 , Software Integration Test Plan Analysis , 1 % , * 5.9 , Software Integration Test Results Analysis , 1 % , * 5.11 , System Test Procedure Analysis , 2 % , * 5.12 , Software FQT Procedure Analysis , 2 % , * 6.3 , Simulation Analysis , 2 % , * 7.1 , Operating Procedure Evaluation , 2 % , * 7.2 , Anomaly Evaluation , 2 % , * 7.3 , Migration Assessment , 2 % , * 7.4 , Retirement Assessment , 2 % , * 3.5 , Acceptance Test Plan Analysis , 3 % , * 5.7 , Acceptance Test Case Analysis , 3 % , * 4.3 , Interface Analysis - Design , 4 % , ** 2.4 , Concept Document Evaluation , 14 % , ***** 2.5 , Software/User Requirements Allocation Analysis , 14 % , ***** 2.6 , Traceability Analysis , 14 % , ***** 5.4 , System Test Case Analysis , 25 % , ******** 5.5 , Software FQT Case Analysis , 25 % , ******** 6.4 , System Test Results Analysis , 25 % , ******** 6.5 , Software FQT Results Analysis , 25 % , ******** 4.2 , Software Design Evaluation , 26 % , ******** 4.6 , Database Analysis , 29 % , ********* 2.2 , Software Architecture Assessment , 48 % , *************** 3.3 , Interface Analysis - Requirements , 48 % , *************** 3.4 , System Test Plan Analysis , 48 % , *************** 5.2 , Source Code and Documentation Evaluation , 48 % , *************** 5.3 , Interface Analysis - Code , 48 % , *************** 2.3 , System Requirements Review , 49 % , *************** 3.2 , Software Requirements Evaluation , 49 % , *************** 2.1 , Reuse Analysis* , 67 % , ******************** 4.1 , Traceability Analysis - Design , 86 % , ************************** 5.1 , Component Test Case Analysis , 87 % , ************************** 4.4 , Software FQT Plan Analysis , 88 % , *************************** 6.1 , Traceability Analysis - Test , 88 % , *************************** 3.1 , Traceability Analysis - Requirements , 89 % , *************************** 1.2 , Issue and Risk Tracking , 99 % , ****************************** 1.3 , Final Report Generation , 99 % , ****************************** 1.4 , IV&V Tool Support , 99 % , ****************************** 1.1 , Management and Planning of IV&V , 100 % , ****************************** 1.5 , Management and Technical Review Support , 100 % , ****************************** 1.6 , Criticality Analysis , 100 % , ****************************** #consequence , error potental , percent , bars 1 , 2 , 1% , r.................................................. 1 , 3 , 0% , ................................................... 1 , 4 , 0% , ................................................... 2 , 1 , 0% , ................................................... 2 , 2 , 4% , rr................................................. 2 , 3 , 4% , rr................................................. 2 , 4 , 2% , r.................................................. 3 , 2 , 5% , rrr................................................ 3 , 3 , 8% , rrrr............................................... 3 , 4 , 7% , rrrr............................................... 4 , 2 , 11% , rrrrrr............................................. 4 , 3 , 17% , rrrrrrrrr.......................................... 4 , 4 , 10% , rrrrr.............................................. 4 , 5 , 0% , ................................................... 5 , 1 , 0% , ................................................... 5 , 2 , 10% , rrrrr.............................................. 5 , 3 , 8% , rrrr............................................... 5 , 4 , 5% , rrr................................................ Human Safety 1 18 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... Human Safety 2 21 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Human Safety 3 19 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... Human Safety 4 21 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Human Safety 5 19 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... Asset Safety 1 19 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... Asset Safety 2 18 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... Asset Safety 3 21 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Asset Safety 4 21 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Asset Safety 5 20 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Performance 1 21 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Performance 2 21 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Performance 3 17 % rrrrrrrr.......................................... Performance 4 18 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... Performance 5 20 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Experience 1 21 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Experience 2 23 % rrrrrrrrrrr....................................... Experience 3 16 % rrrrrrrr.......................................... Experience 4 20 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Experience 5 16 % rrrrrrrr.......................................... Development Organization 1 21 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Development Organization 2 19 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... Development Organization 3 20 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Development Organization 4 18 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... Development Organization 5 20 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Use of Standards 1 21 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Use of Standards 2 21 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Use of Standards 3 17 % rrrrrrrr.......................................... Use of Standards 4 18 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... Use of Standards 5 21 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Use of CM 1 17 % rrrrrrrr.......................................... Use of CM 2 22 % rrrrrrrrrrr....................................... Use of CM 3 21 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Use of CM 4 21 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Use of CM 5 17 % rrrrrrrr.......................................... CMM Level 1 20 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ CMM Level 2 24 % rrrrrrrrrrrr...................................... CMM Level 3 17 % rrrrrrrr.......................................... CMM Level 4 18 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... CMM Level 5 18 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... Use of Formal Reviews 1 20 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Use of Formal Reviews 2 19 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... Use of Formal Reviews 3 20 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Use of Formal Reviews 4 17 % rrrrrrrr.......................................... Use of Formal Reviews 5 22 % rrrrrrrrrrr....................................... Use of Defect Tracking System 1 20 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Use of Defect Tracking System 2 21 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Use of Defect Tracking System 3 17 % rrrrrrrr.......................................... Use of Defect Tracking System 4 19 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... Use of Defect Tracking System 5 21 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Use of Risk Management System 1 20 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Use of Risk Management System 2 20 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Use of Risk Management System 3 19 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... Use of Risk Management System 4 21 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Use of Risk Management System 5 19 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... Re-use Approach 1 14 % rrrrrrr........................................... Re-use Approach 2 21 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Re-use Approach 3 23 % rrrrrrrrrrr....................................... Re-use Approach 4 19 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... Re-use Approach 5 20 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Artifact Maturity 1 20 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Artifact Maturity 2 21 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Artifact Maturity 3 19 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... Artifact Maturity 4 19 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... Artifact Maturity 5 18 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... Complexity 1 22 % rrrrrrrrrrr....................................... Complexity 2 18 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... Complexity 3 18 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... Complexity 4 20 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Complexity 5 20 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Degree of Innovation 1 17 % rrrrrrrr.......................................... Degree of Innovation 2 22 % rrrrrrrrrrr....................................... Degree of Innovation 3 20 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Degree of Innovation 4 19 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... Degree of Innovation 5 19 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... Size of System 1 22 % rrrrrrrrrrr....................................... Size of System 2 19 % rrrrrrrrr......................................... Size of System 3 16 % rrrrrrrr.......................................... Size of System 4 21 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ Size of System 5 20 % rrrrrrrrrr........................................ 4.5 , Software Integration Test Plan Analysis , 25 % , ******** 5.9 , Software Integration Test Results Analysis , 25 % , ******** 3.5 , Acceptance Test Plan Analysis , 27 % , ********* 5.11 , System Test Procedure Analysis , 27 % , ********* 5.12 , Software FQT Procedure Analysis , 27 % , ********* 5.7 , Acceptance Test Case Analysis , 27 % , ********* 6.3 , Simulation Analysis , 27 % , ********* 7.1 , Operating Procedure Evaluation , 27 % , ********* 7.2 , Anomaly Evaluation , 27 % , ********* 7.3 , Migration Assessment , 27 % , ********* 7.4 , Retirement Assessment , 27 % , ********* 4.3 , Interface Analysis - Design , 45 % , ************** 2.4 , Concept Document Evaluation , 62 % , ******************* 2.5 , Software/User Requirements Allocation Analysis , 62 % , ******************* 2.6 , Traceability Analysis , 62 % , ******************* 5.4 , System Test Case Analysis , 62 % , ******************* 5.5 , Software FQT Case Analysis , 62 % , ******************* 6.4 , System Test Results Analysis , 62 % , ******************* 6.5 , Software FQT Results Analysis , 62 % , ******************* 4.6 , Database Analysis , 68 % , ********************* 4.2 , Software Design Evaluation , 70 % , ********************* 2.2 , Software Architecture Assessment , 86 % , ************************** 3.3 , Interface Analysis - Requirements , 86 % , ************************** 3.4 , System Test Plan Analysis , 86 % , ************************** 5.2 , Source Code and Documentation Evaluation , 86 % , ************************** 5.3 , Interface Analysis - Code , 86 % , ************************** 2.3 , System Requirements Review , 88 % , *************************** 3.2 , Software Requirements Evaluation , 88 % , *************************** 2.1 , Reuse Analysis* , 95 % , ***************************** 3.1 , Traceability Analysis - Requirements , 99 % , ****************************** 4.4 , Software FQT Plan Analysis , 99 % , ****************************** 6.1 , Traceability Analysis - Test , 99 % , ****************************** 1.1 , Management and Planning of IV&V , 100 % , ****************************** 1.2 , Issue and Risk Tracking , 100 % , ****************************** 1.3 , Final Report Generation , 100 % , ****************************** 1.4 , IV&V Tool Support , 100 % , ****************************** 1.5 , Management and Technical Review Support , 100 % , ****************************** 1.6 , Criticality Analysis , 100 % , ****************************** 4.1 , Traceability Analysis - Design , 100 % , ****************************** 5.1 , Component Test Case Analysis , 100 % , ****************************** #consequence , error potental , percent , bars 1 , 2 , 1% , 1.................................................. 1 , 3 , 2% , 1.................................................. 2 , 2 , 4% , 11................................................. 2 , 3 , 23% , 111111111111....................................... 3 , 2 , 1% , 1.................................................. 3 , 3 , 8% , 1111............................................... 4 , 2 , 3% , 11................................................. 4 , 3 , 23% , 111111111111....................................... 5 , 2 , 6% , 111................................................ 5 , 3 , 24% , 111111111111....................................... Human Safety 0 63 % 1111111111111111111111111111111................... Human Safety 2 5 % 11................................................ Human Safety 4 5 % 11................................................ Human Safety 5 26 % 1111111111111..................................... Asset Safety 1 63 % 1111111111111111111111111111111................... Asset Safety 4 21 % 1111111111........................................ Asset Safety 5 15 % 1111111........................................... Performance 1 10 % 11111............................................. Performance 2 5 % 11................................................ Performance 3 52 % 11111111111111111111111111........................ Performance 4 5 % 11................................................ Performance 5 26 % 1111111111111..................................... Experience 3 100 % 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Development Organization 2 100 % 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Use of Standards 3 100 % 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Use of CM 1 100 % 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 CMM Level 3 100 % 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Use of Formal Reviews 2 100 % 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Use of Defect Tracking System 2 100 % 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Use of Risk Management System 2 100 % 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Re-use Approach 5 100 % 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Artifact Maturity 1 100 % 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Complexity 1 15 % 1111111........................................... Complexity 2 31 % 111111111111111................................... Complexity 3 42 % 111111111111111111111............................. Complexity 4 10 % 11111............................................. Degree of Innovation 1 100 % 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Size of System 4 100 % 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 5.11 , System Test Procedure Analysis , 27 % , ********* 5.12 , Software FQT Procedure Analysis , 27 % , ********* 6.3 , Simulation Analysis , 27 % , ********* 7.1 , Operating Procedure Evaluation , 27 % , ********* 7.2 , Anomaly Evaluation , 27 % , ********* 7.3 , Migration Assessment , 27 % , ********* 7.4 , Retirement Assessment , 27 % , ********* 2.4 , Concept Document Evaluation , 32 % , ********** 2.5 , Software/User Requirements Allocation Analysis , 32 % , ********** 2.6 , Traceability Analysis , 32 % , ********** 3.5 , Acceptance Test Plan Analysis , 35 % , *********** 4.3 , Interface Analysis - Design , 35 % , *********** 5.7 , Acceptance Test Case Analysis , 35 % , *********** 4.2 , Software Design Evaluation , 57 % , ****************** 5.4 , System Test Case Analysis , 57 % , ****************** 5.5 , Software FQT Case Analysis , 57 % , ****************** 6.4 , System Test Results Analysis , 57 % , ****************** 6.5 , Software FQT Results Analysis , 57 % , ****************** 2.2 , Software Architecture Assessment , 66 % , ******************** 2.3 , System Requirements Review , 66 % , ******************** 3.2 , Software Requirements Evaluation , 66 % , ******************** 3.4 , System Test Plan Analysis , 66 % , ******************** 4.6 , Database Analysis , 84 % , ************************** 3.1 , Traceability Analysis - Requirements , 94 % , ***************************** 3.3 , Interface Analysis - Requirements , 94 % , ***************************** 4.4 , Software FQT Plan Analysis , 94 % , ***************************** 5.2 , Source Code and Documentation Evaluation , 94 % , ***************************** 5.3 , Interface Analysis - Code , 94 % , ***************************** 6.1 , Traceability Analysis - Test , 94 % , ***************************** 1.1 , Management and Planning of IV&V , 100 % , ****************************** 1.2 , Issue and Risk Tracking , 100 % , ****************************** 1.3 , Final Report Generation , 100 % , ****************************** 1.4 , IV&V Tool Support , 100 % , ****************************** 1.5 , Management and Technical Review Support , 100 % , ****************************** 1.6 , Criticality Analysis , 100 % , ****************************** 2.1 , Reuse Analysis* , 100 % , ****************************** 4.1 , Traceability Analysis - Design , 100 % , ****************************** 5.1 , Component Test Case Analysis , 100 % , ****************************** #consequence , error potental , percent , bars 1 , 1 , 3% , 22................................................. 1 , 2 , 9% , 22222.............................................. 1 , 3 , 4% , 22................................................. 1 , 4 , 0% , ................................................... 2 , 1 , 5% , 222................................................ 2 , 2 , 18% , 222222222.......................................... 2 , 3 , 11% , 222222............................................. 2 , 4 , 1% , 2.................................................. 3 , 1 , 3% , 22................................................. 3 , 2 , 12% , 222222............................................. 3 , 3 , 5% , 222................................................ 3 , 4 , 0% , ................................................... 4 , 1 , 4% , 22................................................. 4 , 2 , 8% , 2222............................................... 4 , 3 , 6% , 222................................................ 4 , 4 , 0% , ................................................... 5 , 1 , 0% , ................................................... 5 , 2 , 1% , 2.................................................. 5 , 3 , 0% , ................................................... 5 , 4 , 0% , ................................................... Human Safety 0 47 % 22222222222222222222222........................... Human Safety 1 40 % 22222222222222222222.............................. Human Safety 2 2 % 2................................................. Human Safety 3 0 % .................................................. Human Safety 4 7 % 222............................................... Human Safety 5 0 % .................................................. Asset Safety 1 68 % 2222222222222222222222222222222222................ Asset Safety 2 8 % 2222.............................................. Asset Safety 3 10 % 22222............................................. Asset Safety 4 8 % 2222.............................................. Asset Safety 5 3 % 2................................................. Performance 1 24 % 222222222222...................................... Performance 2 10 % 22222............................................. Performance 3 37 % 222222222222222222................................ Performance 4 18 % 222222222......................................... Performance 5 9 % 2222.............................................. Experience 1 43 % 222222222222222222222............................. Experience 2 14 % 2222222........................................... Experience 3 16 % 22222222.......................................... Experience 4 17 % 22222222.......................................... Experience 5 7 % 222............................................... Development Organization 0.5 1 % .................................................. Development Organization 2 46 % 22222222222222222222222........................... Development Organization 3 2 % 2................................................. Development Organization 4 45 % 2222222222222222222222............................ Development Organization 5 4 % 22................................................ Use of Standards 1 56 % 2222222222222222222222222222...................... Use of Standards 2 21 % 2222222222........................................ Use of Standards 3 14 % 2222222........................................... Use of Standards 5 7 % 222............................................... Use of CM 1 81 % 2222222222222222222222222222222222222222.......... Use of CM 2 15 % 2222222........................................... Use of CM 3 3 % 2................................................. CMM Level 2 0 % .................................................. CMM Level 3 78 % 222222222222222222222222222222222222222........... CMM Level 4 13 % 222222............................................ CMM Level 5 7 % 222............................................... Use of Formal Reviews 1 90 % 222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222..... Use of Formal Reviews 2 9 % 2222.............................................. Use of Formal Reviews 3 0 % .................................................. Use of Defect Tracking System 1 56 % 2222222222222222222222222222...................... Use of Defect Tracking System 2 31 % 222222222222222................................... Use of Defect Tracking System 3 11 % 22222............................................. Use of Defect Tracking System 4 1 % .................................................. Use of Risk Management System 1 16 % 22222222.......................................... Use of Risk Management System 2 29 % 22222222222222.................................... Use of Risk Management System 3 53 % 22222222222222222222222222........................ Re-use Approach 1 73 % 222222222222222222222222222222222222.............. Re-use Approach 2 12 % 222222............................................ Re-use Approach 3 0 % .................................................. Re-use Approach 4 1 % .................................................. Re-use Approach 5 12 % 222222............................................ Artifact Maturity 1 60 % 222222222222222222222222222222.................... Artifact Maturity 2 20 % 2222222222........................................ Artifact Maturity 3 18 % 222222222......................................... Complexity 1 40 % 22222222222222222222.............................. Complexity 2 6 % 222............................................... Complexity 3 37 % 222222222222222222................................ Complexity 4 11 % 22222............................................. Complexity 5 3 % 2................................................. Degree of Innovation 1 90 % 222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222..... Degree of Innovation 2 7 % 222............................................... Degree of Innovation 3 1 % .................................................. Degree of Innovation 4 0 % .................................................. Size of System 1 0 % .................................................. Size of System 2 40 % 22222222222222222222.............................. Size of System 3 54 % 222222222222222222222222222....................... Size of System 4 3 % 2................................................. 3.5 , Acceptance Test Plan Analysis , 2 % , * 5.11 , System Test Procedure Analysis , 2 % , * 5.12 , Software FQT Procedure Analysis , 2 % , * 5.7 , Acceptance Test Case Analysis , 2 % , * 6.3 , Simulation Analysis , 2 % , * 7.1 , Operating Procedure Evaluation , 2 % , * 7.2 , Anomaly Evaluation , 2 % , * 7.3 , Migration Assessment , 2 % , * 7.4 , Retirement Assessment , 2 % , * 4.5 , Software Integration Test Plan Analysis , 4 % , ** 5.9 , Software Integration Test Results Analysis , 4 % , ** 4.3 , Interface Analysis - Design , 6 % , ** 2.4 , Concept Document Evaluation , 14 % , ***** 2.5 , Software/User Requirements Allocation Analysis , 14 % , ***** 2.6 , Traceability Analysis , 14 % , ***** 5.4 , System Test Case Analysis , 21 % , ******* 5.5 , Software FQT Case Analysis , 21 % , ******* 6.4 , System Test Results Analysis , 21 % , ******* 6.5 , Software FQT Results Analysis , 21 % , ******* 4.2 , Software Design Evaluation , 24 % , ******** 4.6 , Database Analysis , 33 % , ********** 3.3 , Interface Analysis - Requirements , 47 % , *************** 5.2 , Source Code and Documentation Evaluation , 47 % , *************** 5.3 , Interface Analysis - Code , 47 % , *************** 2.2 , Software Architecture Assessment , 48 % , *************** 3.4 , System Test Plan Analysis , 48 % , *************** 2.3 , System Requirements Review , 50 % , **************** 3.2 , Software Requirements Evaluation , 50 % , **************** 2.1 , Reuse Analysis* , 55 % , ***************** 4.1 , Traceability Analysis - Design , 80 % , ************************ 5.1 , Component Test Case Analysis , 80 % , ************************ 4.4 , Software FQT Plan Analysis , 85 % , ************************** 6.1 , Traceability Analysis - Test , 85 % , ************************** 3.1 , Traceability Analysis - Requirements , 86 % , ************************** 1.2 , Issue and Risk Tracking , 97 % , ****************************** 1.3 , Final Report Generation , 97 % , ****************************** 1.4 , IV&V Tool Support , 97 % , ****************************** 1.1 , Management and Planning of IV&V , 100 % , ****************************** 1.5 , Management and Technical Review Support , 100 % , ****************************** 1.6 , Criticality Analysis , 100 % , ****************************** #consequence , error potental , percent , bars 1 , 1 , 0% , ................................................... 1 , 2 , 5% , 333................................................ 1 , 3 , 1% , 3.................................................. 2 , 1 , 3% , 33................................................. 2 , 2 , 28% , 33333333333333..................................... 2 , 3 , 16% , 33333333........................................... 2 , 4 , 0% , ................................................... 3 , 1 , 1% , 3.................................................. 3 , 2 , 19% , 3333333333......................................... 3 , 3 , 9% , 33333.............................................. 4 , 1 , 1% , 3.................................................. 4 , 2 , 7% , 3333............................................... 4 , 3 , 2% , 3.................................................. 5 , 2 , 1% , 3.................................................. 5 , 3 , 1% , 3.................................................. Human Safety 0 88 % 33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333...... Human Safety 1 9 % 3333.............................................. Human Safety 2 2 % 3................................................. Asset Safety 1 67 % 333333333333333333333333333333333................. Asset Safety 2 6 % 333............................................... Asset Safety 3 8 % 3333.............................................. Asset Safety 4 14 % 3333333........................................... Asset Safety 5 3 % 3................................................. Performance 1 9 % 3333.............................................. Performance 2 7 % 333............................................... Performance 3 56 % 3333333333333333333333333333...................... Performance 4 15 % 3333333........................................... Performance 5 10 % 33333............................................. Experience 1 49 % 333333333333333333333333.......................... Experience 2 14 % 3333333........................................... Experience 3 23 % 33333333333....................................... Experience 4 11 % 33333............................................. Development Organization 1 18 % 333333333......................................... Development Organization 4 44 % 3333333333333333333333............................ Development Organization 5 36 % 333333333333333333................................ Use of Standards 1 55 % 333333333333333333333333333....................... Use of Standards 2 23 % 33333333333....................................... Use of Standards 3 20 % 3333333333........................................ Use of CM 1 35 % 33333333333333333................................. Use of CM 2 60 % 333333333333333333333333333333.................... Use of CM 3 3 % 3................................................. CMM Level 3 60 % 333333333333333333333333333333.................... CMM Level 4 39 % 3333333333333333333............................... Use of Formal Reviews 1 29 % 33333333333333.................................... Use of Formal Reviews 2 70 % 33333333333333333333333333333333333............... Use of Defect Tracking System 1 3 % 3................................................. Use of Defect Tracking System 2 47 % 33333333333333333333333........................... Use of Defect Tracking System 3 48 % 333333333333333333333333.......................... Use of Risk Management System 1 22 % 33333333333....................................... Use of Risk Management System 2 77 % 33333333333333333333333333333333333333............ Re-use Approach 1 39 % 3333333333333333333............................... Re-use Approach 3 11 % 33333............................................. Re-use Approach 4 48 % 333333333333333333333333.......................... Artifact Maturity 1 83 % 33333333333333333333333333333333333333333......... Artifact Maturity 2 13 % 333333............................................ Artifact Maturity 3 3 % 3................................................. Complexity 1 20 % 3333333333........................................ Complexity 2 19 % 333333333......................................... Complexity 3 45 % 3333333333333333333333............................ Complexity 4 10 % 33333............................................. Complexity 5 3 % 3................................................. Degree of Innovation 1 83 % 33333333333333333333333333333333333333333......... Degree of Innovation 2 13 % 333333............................................ Degree of Innovation 3 3 % 3................................................. Size of System 1 27 % 3333333333333..................................... Size of System 2 13 % 333333............................................ Size of System 3 59 % 33333333333333333333333333333..................... 4.5 , Software Integration Test Plan Analysis , 1 % , * 5.9 , Software Integration Test Results Analysis , 1 % , * 2.4 , Concept Document Evaluation , 2 % , * 2.5 , Software/User Requirements Allocation Analysis , 2 % , * 2.6 , Traceability Analysis , 2 % , * 3.5 , Acceptance Test Plan Analysis , 2 % , * 4.3 , Interface Analysis - Design , 2 % , * 5.7 , Acceptance Test Case Analysis , 2 % , * 4.2 , Software Design Evaluation , 18 % , ****** 5.4 , System Test Case Analysis , 18 % , ****** 5.5 , Software FQT Case Analysis , 18 % , ****** 6.4 , System Test Results Analysis , 18 % , ****** 6.5 , Software FQT Results Analysis , 18 % , ****** 4.6 , Database Analysis , 33 % , ********** 3.3 , Interface Analysis - Requirements , 45 % , ************** 5.2 , Source Code and Documentation Evaluation , 45 % , ************** 5.3 , Interface Analysis - Code , 45 % , ************** 2.2 , Software Architecture Assessment , 49 % , *************** 2.3 , System Requirements Review , 49 % , *************** 3.2 , Software Requirements Evaluation , 49 % , *************** 3.4 , System Test Plan Analysis , 49 % , *************** 2.1 , Reuse Analysis* , 79 % , ************************ 3.1 , Traceability Analysis - Requirements , 93 % , ***************************** 4.1 , Traceability Analysis - Design , 93 % , **************************** 4.4 , Software FQT Plan Analysis , 93 % , ***************************** 5.1 , Component Test Case Analysis , 93 % , ***************************** 6.1 , Traceability Analysis - Test , 93 % , ***************************** 1.2 , Issue and Risk Tracking , 99 % , ****************************** 1.3 , Final Report Generation , 99 % , ****************************** 1.4 , IV&V Tool Support , 99 % , ****************************** 1.1 , Management and Planning of IV&V , 100 % , ****************************** 1.5 , Management and Technical Review Support , 100 % , ****************************** 1.6 , Criticality Analysis , 100 % , ****************************** #consequence , error potental , percent , bars 1 , 2 , 3% , 44................................................. 2 , 1 , 0% , ................................................... 2 , 2 , 26% , 4444444444444...................................... 2 , 3 , 6% , 444................................................ 2 , 4 , 0% , ................................................... 3 , 1 , 0% , ................................................... 3 , 2 , 13% , 4444444............................................ 3 , 3 , 3% , 44................................................. 3 , 4 , 0% , ................................................... 4 , 1 , 1% , 4.................................................. 4 , 2 , 27% , 44444444444444..................................... 4 , 3 , 5% , 444................................................ 4 , 4 , 0% , ................................................... 5 , 1 , 0% , ................................................... 5 , 2 , 7% , 4444............................................... 5 , 3 , 1% , 4.................................................. 5 , 4 , 0% , ................................................... Human Safety 0 42 % 444444444444444444444............................. Human Safety 1 57 % 4444444444444444444444444444...................... Asset Safety 1 55 % 444444444444444444444444444....................... Asset Safety 2 3 % 4................................................. Asset Safety 3 10 % 44444............................................. Asset Safety 4 3 % 4................................................. Asset Safety 5 26 % 4444444444444..................................... Performance 1 10 % 44444............................................. Performance 2 8 % 4444.............................................. Performance 3 42 % 444444444444444444444............................. Performance 4 8 % 4444.............................................. Performance 5 28 % 44444444444444.................................... Experience 1 44 % 4444444444444444444444............................ Experience 2 41 % 44444444444444444444.............................. Experience 3 8 % 4444.............................................. Experience 4 3 % 4................................................. Experience 5 1 % .................................................. Development Organization 1 30 % 444444444444444................................... Development Organization 4 64 % 44444444444444444444444444444444.................. Development Organization 5 5 % 44................................................ Use of Standards 1 26 % 4444444444444..................................... Use of Standards 2 46 % 44444444444444444444444........................... Use of Standards 3 26 % 4444444444444..................................... Use of CM 1 26 % 4444444444444..................................... Use of CM 2 41 % 44444444444444444444.............................. Use of CM 3 32 % 4444444444444444.................................. CMM Level 3 76 % 44444444444444444444444444444444444444............ CMM Level 4 23 % 44444444444....................................... Use of Formal Reviews 1 25 % 444444444444...................................... Use of Formal Reviews 2 67 % 444444444444444444444444444444444................. Use of Formal Reviews 3 7 % 444............................................... Use of Defect Tracking System 3 100 % 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 Use of Risk Management System 1 25 % 444444444444...................................... Use of Risk Management System 2 48 % 444444444444444444444444.......................... Use of Risk Management System 3 26 % 4444444444444..................................... Re-use Approach 1 30 % 444444444444444................................... Re-use Approach 3 64 % 44444444444444444444444444444444.................. Re-use Approach 4 5 % 44................................................ Artifact Maturity 1 37 % 444444444444444444................................ Artifact Maturity 2 41 % 44444444444444444444.............................. Artifact Maturity 3 21 % 4444444444........................................ Complexity 1 8 % 4444.............................................. Complexity 2 12 % 444444............................................ Complexity 3 48 % 444444444444444444444444.......................... Complexity 4 19 % 444444444......................................... Complexity 5 10 % 44444............................................. Degree of Innovation 1 55 % 444444444444444444444444444....................... Degree of Innovation 2 30 % 444444444444444................................... Degree of Innovation 3 5 % 44................................................ Degree of Innovation 4 8 % 4444.............................................. Size of System 2 17 % 44444444.......................................... Size of System 3 82 % 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444......... 4.5 , Software Integration Test Plan Analysis , 1 % , * 5.9 , Software Integration Test Results Analysis , 1 % , * 5.11 , System Test Procedure Analysis , 5 % , ** 5.12 , Software FQT Procedure Analysis , 5 % , ** 6.3 , Simulation Analysis , 5 % , ** 7.1 , Operating Procedure Evaluation , 5 % , ** 7.2 , Anomaly Evaluation , 5 % , ** 7.3 , Migration Assessment , 5 % , ** 7.4 , Retirement Assessment , 5 % , ** 3.5 , Acceptance Test Plan Analysis , 8 % , *** 5.7 , Acceptance Test Case Analysis , 8 % , *** 4.3 , Interface Analysis - Design , 9 % , *** 4.6 , Database Analysis , 18 % , ****** 2.4 , Concept Document Evaluation , 24 % , ******** 2.5 , Software/User Requirements Allocation Analysis , 24 % , ******** 2.6 , Traceability Analysis , 24 % , ******** 5.4 , System Test Case Analysis , 43 % , ************* 5.5 , Software FQT Case Analysis , 43 % , ************* 6.4 , System Test Results Analysis , 43 % , ************* 6.5 , Software FQT Results Analysis , 43 % , ************* 4.2 , Software Design Evaluation , 44 % , ************** 3.3 , Interface Analysis - Requirements , 53 % , **************** 5.2 , Source Code and Documentation Evaluation , 53 % , **************** 5.3 , Interface Analysis - Code , 53 % , **************** 2.2 , Software Architecture Assessment , 57 % , ****************** 2.3 , System Requirements Review , 57 % , ****************** 3.2 , Software Requirements Evaluation , 57 % , ****************** 3.4 , System Test Plan Analysis , 57 % , ****************** 2.1 , Reuse Analysis* , 86 % , ************************** 3.1 , Traceability Analysis - Requirements , 92 % , **************************** 4.4 , Software FQT Plan Analysis , 92 % , **************************** 6.1 , Traceability Analysis - Test , 92 % , **************************** 4.1 , Traceability Analysis - Design , 96 % , ***************************** 5.1 , Component Test Case Analysis , 96 % , ***************************** 1.1 , Management and Planning of IV&V , 100 % , ****************************** 1.2 , Issue and Risk Tracking , 100 % , ****************************** 1.3 , Final Report Generation , 100 % , ****************************** 1.4 , IV&V Tool Support , 100 % , ****************************** 1.5 , Management and Technical Review Support , 100 % , ****************************** 1.6 , Criticality Analysis , 100 % , ******************************