B02

card_id: B02

input: Program/project characteristics (mission type, criticality, acceptable risk, national significance, complexity, lifetime, cost, launch/operational constraints) and a baseline set of standard technical, technical-management, and product-realization processes, aligned to the ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 process family.

operation: Assess the program/project against named criteria, then apply one or more of three tailoring mechanisms: eliminate a non-applicable or overly burdensome requirement; adjust the scope/formality of a requirement (e.g., combine reviews, reduce documentation formality); or scale a requirement to balance implementation cost against project risk. Record the decision and rationale in a Compliance Matrix attached to the project's SE Management Plan, then route it through an approval/governance chain.

output: A tailored, documented, and approved project-specific configuration of the standard process set (Compliance Matrix plus waivers/deviations where required).

scope_conditions: NASA space-flight and non-space-flight programs/projects of varying size, and DoD acquisition programs across multiple acquisition pathways; both sources explicitly frame themselves as operationalizations of the ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 process family.

failure_conditions: Eliminating a requirement without a required waiver/deviation is non-compliant; highly critical or nationally significant missions "may not be able to get relief from NPR requirements" — tailoring latitude is criterion-bounded, not unconstrained.

predicted_effect: Intended to let programs achieve technical objectives within cost/schedule constraints by eliminating unnecessary overhead while preserving required rigor; direction only, no quantified effect verified.

measurement: Compliance Matrix entries record compliance/intent-to-comply plus tailoring rationale per requirement; the DoD source additionally maps its own processes to ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 processes (an explicit correspondence table, not a numeric score).

implementation_test: Given a project's risk posture and the stated criteria, classify the project by type and identify which tailoring mechanism applies to each requirement; auditable via the Compliance Matrix, not automatically pass/fail.

decision_rights: Project management assembles a team (chief engineer, lead systems engineer, safety/mission assurance) to propose tailoring; final tailoring is approved through a governance/review chain; DoD assigns the PM as responsible for the tailored strategy.

uncertainty_handling: No calibrated probability mechanism; risk posture is assessed qualitatively/categorically and used as one tailoring criterion among several.

verification: Compliance Matrix review/approval chain (NASA); explicit standards-mapping table plus program milestone reviews (DoD).

provenance: SE03 sections 2.1, 3.11.1-3.11.5; SE04 section 4, Table 4-1, Figure 4-1.

implementation_cost: Not quantified; described qualitatively as needing "experienced mentors" for efficiency; small projects are noted to need lighter-weight review formality (hours vs. weeks for large projects).

limitations: Both sources are agency operational guides, not the ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288/24748-1 standard text itself; may not generalize outside aerospace/defense.

statement_basis: direct: ["8 NASA tailoring criteria", "3 tailoring mechanisms (eliminate/adjust scope/adjust formality)", "Compliance Matrix mechanism", "DoD Figure 4-1 explicit process-to-ISO/IEC/IEEE-15288 mapping"] inference: ["predicted_effect summary phrasing is curator paraphrase of the sources' stated intent"]