Services
Design Verification
Prove More Than Requirements Compliance
Verification planning that connects requirements, identified failure modes, operating conditions, interfaces, and engineering risk so your test and analysis effort provides meaningful evidence that the design will perform as intended.
Schedule a Free Scoping CallVerification Should Prove What Matters
Verification is one of the most important sources of engineering evidence in product development.
Requirements establish what the product must do. Verification demonstrates whether those requirements have been satisfied.
But requirements alone may not capture every way a design can fail.
Failure modes identified through DFMEA, engineering risk assessment, previous testing, field experience, and lessons learned can reveal additional conditions, interfaces, margins, and uncertainties that deserve verification attention.
Fortitron helps teams develop and review verification strategies that connect requirements and engineering risk, so test and analysis effort is focused where it provides the greatest value.
The objective is not simply to pass verification. It is to understand what the available evidence actually demonstrates about the design.
Where Verification Can Fall Short
A verification program can satisfy its planned activities while important engineering questions remain unanswered.
Common challenges include:
- Verification plans developed from requirements without sufficient connection to identified failure modes and engineering risks.
- Acceptance criteria established without adequate consideration of operating limits, uncertainty, or required margin.
- Test environments or duty cycles that do not adequately represent the conditions the product is expected to experience.
- Carryover components credited based on previous applications without fully considering changes in loads, interfaces, environments, or usage.
- Analysis used as verification without clearly defining the validated range and assumptions of the model.
- Interfaces verified independently without sufficient system-level or integrated verification.
- Test results recorded as pass or fail without capturing what they reveal about design margin.
- Changes to the design, requirements, or risk analysis not fully reflected in the verification plan.
A strong verification strategy connects requirements, risk, and evidence throughout development.
What the Work Covers
Fortitron can develop a verification strategy from the ground up or independently review and strengthen an existing plan.
Verification Strategy Development
We help define an appropriate combination of test, analysis, inspection, demonstration, and other verification methods based on the requirements, design maturity, identified risks, and available evidence.
Requirements Traceability
Verification activities are traced to the requirements they are intended to satisfy so that coverage is clear and evidence can be readily located and reviewed.
Risk and Failure Mode Traceability
Where appropriate, verification activities are also mapped to significant failure modes and engineering risks identified through DFMEA, risk assessments, lessons learned, test history, or other analyses.
This helps identify important risks that may not be adequately addressed through requirements traceability alone.
DVP&R Development and Review
We develop or review Design Verification Plans and Reports (DVP&R) that clearly define verification methods, conditions, acceptance criteria, results, and supporting evidence.
Acceptance Criteria and Margin
Acceptance criteria are reviewed against the intended operating envelope and available engineering evidence.
Where useful, verification can be structured to provide information about design margin rather than simply demonstrating a pass at the required condition.
Analysis as Verification
Where analytical methods are used as verification evidence, we review the assumptions, boundary conditions, correlation, validation, and applicable range of the model.
The objective is to understand where the analysis provides credible evidence and where additional validation or physical testing may be appropriate.
Interface and Integration Verification
We examine verification coverage across interfaces and integrated systems, particularly where responsibilities are divided between teams, suppliers, or subsystems.
Verification Optimization
More testing is not automatically better verification.
Where existing evidence or low technical risk supports reducing unnecessary verification effort, we identify those opportunities as well. The objective is to apply verification resources where they provide meaningful engineering evidence.
What You Get From It
The value of verification is not the number of tests completed. It is the confidence provided by the evidence.
A focused verification effort can provide:
- Clear traceability between requirements and verification evidence.
- Significant failure modes and engineering risks connected to appropriate verification activities.
- Coverage gaps identified before the verification campaign begins.
- Acceptance criteria tied to meaningful operating conditions.
- Better understanding of design margin and uncertainty.
- Analysis used within clearly understood assumptions and validated ranges.
- Improved interface and integration verification.
- Reduced unnecessary testing where existing evidence is sufficient.
- Verification evidence that can support customer, program, and certification activities.
- A clearer technical basis for determining whether the design is ready to advance.
The result is not simply a completed verification plan. It is stronger engineering evidence about what the design has actually demonstrated.
How the Engagement Runs
- Scope and Objectives
We begin by understanding the product, program stage, requirements, design maturity, existing risk analyses, verification strategy, upcoming milestones, and areas of concern.
The initial scoping call is free and carries no obligation.
- Requirements, Risk, and Evidence Review
Available requirements, verification plans, DFMEAs, risk assessments, analyses, previous test results, field history, lessons learned, and other relevant engineering information are reviewed.
Requirements, risks, and existing verification evidence are mapped against one another to establish the current coverage.
- Coverage and Gap Analysis
We identify requirements that lack adequate verification evidence, significant failure modes or engineering risks without appropriate verification, existing activities that may not represent the intended operating conditions, acceptance criteria or margins that require clarification, analysis being credited outside its demonstrated range, and interface or integration verification that may be incomplete.
The objective is to make verification gaps visible before they become late program discoveries.
- Verification Plan Development
Where appropriate, we develop or update the verification strategy and DVP&R. Verification methods, conditions, acceptance criteria, traceability, and required evidence are clearly defined.
The resulting plan connects requirements compliance with the engineering risks that matter most.
- Execution Support and Evidence Review
Fortitron can provide optional support as verification results become available.
We review whether the resulting evidence demonstrates what the verification activity was intended to establish and whether new findings should change the risk analysis, verification strategy, or engineering decisions.
Design Verification Within FERF™
Within the Fortitron Engineering Readiness Framework (FERF™), verification is not simply a late-stage activity used to demonstrate compliance. It is a continuing source of engineering evidence.
FERF™ connects Technology Readiness, Engineering Assurance, and Manufacturing Readiness throughout product development. Verification provides evidence that informs all three.
A test result may confirm a requirement, reveal insufficient design margin, expose a new failure mode, challenge a technology-readiness assumption, or identify a manufacturing characteristic that requires tighter control. Likewise, DFMEA and engineering risk analysis should inform what needs to be verified.
Risk informs verification. Verification produces evidence. Evidence updates risk and readiness.
The objective is not simply to complete the verification program. It is to use verification evidence to make better readiness decisions throughout development.
Learn More About FERF™Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between verification and validation?
Verification asks whether the product meets its specified requirements. Validation asks whether the resulting product satisfies its intended use and user needs in the relevant operating context.
Both are important, and a product can satisfy its verification requirements while still revealing issues during validation or operational use.
What is a DVP&R?
A Design Verification Plan and Report (DVP&R) documents what will be verified, how verification will be performed, the applicable conditions and acceptance criteria, and the resulting evidence.
A strong DVP&R provides clear traceability between requirements, verification activities, results, and, where appropriate, identified engineering risks.
Can you work from our existing verification plan?
Yes. Reviewing and strengthening an existing verification plan can often be more efficient than starting over. We can map the existing plan against requirements, identified failure modes, engineering risks, and available evidence to identify coverage gaps or areas where the verification basis can be strengthened.
The objective is not to redo good work. It is to make sure the plan provides the evidence the program needs.
Do you run the testing yourselves?
No. Fortitron is an engineering consultancy, not a test laboratory. We develop and review verification strategies, evaluate coverage, help establish appropriate acceptance criteria, and assess what the resulting evidence demonstrates.
Physical testing remains with your internal team or qualified test provider.
Can analysis replace physical testing?
In some cases, yes. Analysis can provide valuable verification evidence when the analytical method, assumptions, boundary conditions, and applicable range are sufficiently understood and supported.
The appropriate balance between analysis and physical testing depends on the requirement, technical risk, model maturity, available validation evidence, and intended application. Where credible analysis can reduce unnecessary physical testing, we support using it.
Should verification trace to DFMEA?
Where DFMEA identifies significant design failure modes, the verification strategy should consider whether adequate evidence exists to address those risks.
Not every DFMEA item necessarily requires a dedicated test. Verification may be provided through analysis, inspection, demonstration, existing evidence, or other appropriate methods. The important question is whether the significant engineering risks have adequate evidence behind them.
When should verification planning begin?
Verification planning should begin early enough to influence the design and evolve as requirements, risks, and design maturity change.
Beginning early helps identify requirements that may be difficult to verify, test capabilities that require long lead times, missing instrumentation or facilities, and failure modes that deserve additional engineering attention. Verification should therefore develop alongside the product rather than begin only when the design is considered complete.
Can you help reduce our verification cost?
Potentially. The objective is not to maximize or minimize testing. It is to develop the verification evidence appropriate to the requirements and engineering risk.
Where existing evidence, credible analysis, similarity, or low technical risk supports eliminating or simplifying unnecessary verification activities, we identify those opportunities. Likewise, where additional verification is justified by significant risk, we make that visible.
Make Your Verification Effort Count
Verification consumes significant engineering time, facilities, hardware, and program resources. Make sure that effort produces the evidence your program actually needs. Fortitron connects requirements, failure modes, engineering risk, verification methods, and resulting evidence so teams can understand not simply whether the design passed, but what the design has actually demonstrated.
The initial scoping call is free and carries no obligation. We will discuss your product, verification strategy, existing risk analyses, available evidence, and upcoming program milestones to determine how Fortitron can help.