In rail, infrastructure and defence, a wrong or unverified requirement doesn't just cost money — it costs safety, service or capability.
Rail requirements carry conflicting Train Operating Company needs, a regulator that expects the GB Generic Requirements Suite satisfied to the letter, and no room for a late-discovered ambiguity. Work spans ETCS digital resignalling, station capacity and new-build light rail — from Client Requirements Document to as-built verification.
Capital programmes rarely fail on one bad requirement — they fail at the interfaces, where one organisation's assumption meets another's. That means Technical Interface Registers, Asset Breakdown Structures, and design and as-built verification feeding straight into gate reviews.
Before rail, over 25 years in UK defence and aerospace — missile systems, avionics, tactical communications and cryptography — on programmes where the safety case has to be right first time: requirements against a UML/SysML architecture model, a Requirements Verification Matrix maintained through live firing campaigns. Earlier defence experience is available on request.
Programmes above are named at the level clients' own disclosures allow. Classified detail is discussed directly, under the appropriate agreement.
Let's talk about where your programme's risk sits.