ISO/TS 18667:2018 宇宙システム—機能ベースの安全性、信頼性、および品質保証（SD＆QA）プログラム管理 | ページ 6

3.1.1

benchmark

any standard or reference by which others can be measured

3.1.2

best technical practice

documented technique, method, procedure, or process based on a standard or guide, that was developed through experience and research, and is being used as a benchmark by multiple organizations to efficiently obtain prescribed results with consistent quality and to measure against

3.1.3

capability

ability to achieve a desired effect under specified standards and conditions

3.1.4

capability-based Safety, Dependability and Quality Assurance (SD&QA) programme

programme for space and ground control systems that consists of three groups of processes; the Safety programme; the Dependability Programme; and the Quality Assurance Programme, which are pre-tailored to efficiently identify, assess, and eliminate or mitigate specific types of technical risks throughout the product’s mission duration and post-mission disposal

3.1.5

capability-based Safety, Dependability and Quality Assurance (SD&QA) process

individual process that consists of a group of activities which are capable of efficiently identifying, assessing, and mitigating or controlling specified types of technical risks

3.1.6

capability level growth

measurable improvement in the ability of a SD&QA programme or process to support the system safety and mission success needs of a systems engineering process

3.1.7

deficiency

amount that is lacking or inadequate

3.1.8

operational safety

level of safety risk to a system, the environment, or the occupational health of personnel caused by another system or end item when employed in an operational environment

3.1.9

product unit-value/criticality categories

five pre-defined categories of products where Category 1 is the lowest value product group and Category 5 is the highest value product group

Note 1 to entry: See Figure D.1.

3.1.10

requirements creep

discovery of one or more new requirements after start of a project, statement of work (SOW), or memorandum of agreement (MOA)

3.1.11

requirements falsification

act of creating one or more false requirements after start of a project, statement of work (SOW), or memorandum of agreement (MOA)

3.1.12

Safety, Dependability and Quality Assurance (SD&QA) programme capability levels

pre-tailored groups of processes that are capable of achieving measurable improvement in comprehensiveness, accuracy, and efficiency, with regard to technical risk identification, assessment, and mitigation, when implemented by transitioning from the lowest process group level (i.e. Capability level 1) through the process group levels (i.e. capability levels) that cumulatively involve a level of effort commensurate with the product’s unit-value/criticality and systems engineering life cycle data content/maturity throughout its mission duration and post-mission disposal

Note 1 to entry: The product’s unit-value/criticality is provided in Table 1.

Note 2 to entry: The systems engineering life cycle data content/maturity is provided in Table 3.

3.1.13

subject matter expert

SME

person that completed a technical education programme, was formally trained in real-world applications, and has acquired extensive experience in a technical area

3.1.14

system of systems

integration of existing and/or new systems into an over-arching system with capabilities that are greater than the sum of the capabilities of the constituent component systems

3.1.15

validation

confirmation, through objective evidence, that the requirements for a specific intended use or application have been fulfilled

Note 1 to entry: The term “validated” is used to designate the corresponding status.

Note 2 to entry: The use conditions for validation can be real or simulated.

Note 3 to entry: Validation may be determined by a combination of test, analysis, demonstration, and inspection.

3.1.16

verification

confirmation through the provision of objective evidence that specified requirements have been fulfilled

Note 1 to entry: The term “verified” is used to designate the corresponding status.

Note 2 to entry: Confirmation can be comprised of activities such as performing alternative calculations, comparing a new design specification with a similar proven design specification, undertaking tests and demonstrations, reviewing documents prior to issue.

Note 3 to entry: Verification may be determined by a combination of test, analysis, demonstration, and inspection.