Add Your Heading Text Here
Add Your Heading Text Here
The program runs on requirements. Prove every one.
From the SOW clause to the verified test evidence behind it — Modern Requirements gives defence primes and suppliers one governed requirements thread inside Azure DevOps: flowed down with context, changed under ECP discipline, verified at depth, and audit-ready for the program office, DCMA, or a certification authority at any point in time.
Modern Requirements4DevOps · Copilot4DevOps · Agents4DevOps — deployed inside your boundary, including Azure DevOps Server for disconnected and export-controlled environments.
✓ SOW → system → supplier → test → evidence: one thread, provable at any gate.
Coverage computed from live link data — the TRR answer, before the TRR.
The challenge
The most audited industry on earth still runs its requirements on documents and email
Defence programs answer to more oversight than any other engineering domain — program offices, DCMA, certification authorities, and now CMMC assessors. Yet the requirements record that everything traces back to is, on most programs, a set of specs in Word, a verification matrix in Excel, and a flowdown status that lives in supplier emails.
DoD's costliest program portfolio — on GAO's High Risk List
GAO ties program outcomes directly to early, detailed systems engineering. The programs that deliver did the requirements work first.
Digital engineering is now policy
DoDI 5000.97 requires digital engineering on new programs, with the digital thread as the authoritative source of truth — flowing down through the supply chain.
CMMC is in contracts — and flows down
Phase 1 is live: self-assessments, SPRS scores, and annual affirmations as pre-award conditions. Phase 2 certification is paused for reform review — the obligations aren't.
of rework cost traces to requirements errors
The most expensive defects on a program were written down months before the first article — and surface at integration or in operational test.
Primes expect a thread. Suppliers get attachments.
Requirements flow down as static documents and flow back up as certificates, test reports, and emails — re-keyed, re-checked, re-argued at every tier. Meanwhile DoDI 5000.97 makes the digital thread the authoritative record, and primes are starting to ask suppliers to demonstrate live traceability as a condition of teaming. A supplier who can show the thread is easier to award work to. One who can't is a risk line-item.
Every change is an ECP. Most impact analyses are guesses.
On a defence program, a requirement change isn't an edit — it's an engineering change proposal with cost, schedule, and contractual consequences. When the trace lives in spreadsheets, the CCB decides on a week-old impact estimate assembled by hand. The changes that slip through untraced are the ones operational test finds.
Gate reviews and audits run on reassembled truth
SRR, PDR, CDR, TRR, SOI audits, DCMA reviews, CDRL deliveries — each one triggers weeks of assembling specifications, trace matrices, and verification status from systems that don't talk to each other. The review board spends its time validating the package instead of the design. And every reassembly is a fresh chance for the record to disagree with itself.
ITAR, CUI, and classified programs constrain every tool choice
Export-controlled and classified work can't flow through arbitrary SaaS. The requirements record — and any AI that touches it — has to live inside the boundary: your identity model, your network, your enclave. Most modern tooling fails this test on page one. The tooling that passes it is usually a decade old.
Everything on this page runs on three Modern Requirements products
All native to Azure DevOps — cloud, GCC, or Azure DevOps Server inside your boundary. Start with the foundation; add the layers as your program needs them.
Moderne Anforderungen für DevOps
The governed requirements record: Smart Docs, live traceability, baselines and variants, ECP-ready change control, review management with e-signatures, and CDRL-ready reporting.
See the foundation → The AI layerCopilot für DevOps
Governed AI on that record: decompose, score quality against INCOSE characteristics, assess change impact — with BYO-LLM and on-prem AI for export-controlled programs.
See the AI layer → The agents layerAgents4DevOps
Agents that run the routine work — flowdown gap patrols, coverage checks, gate package assembly — under policy controls, with human sign-off.
See the agents layer →Next: the acquisition lifecycle, the compliance loop, and the clock running on both.
Next: The lifecycle →The lifecycle
Two lifecycles run every defence program: the acquisition and the compliance loop
The acquisition framework moves the program through its gates. The cybersecurity compliance loop never stops moving at all. Both keep asking the same question — show me the requirement, the implementation, and the evidence — and both get their answer from the same governed record.
CMMC
compliance loop
Scope CUI & FCI boundary
Security requirements derived
Controls implemented
Self-assess & SPRS score
POA&M & remediation
Affirm annually · flow down
Phase 2 is paused. The loop isn't.
The Pentagon suspended CMMC's Phase 2 certification rollout in July 2026 while a reform task force reviews the program — but Phase 1 obligations continue in full: self-assessments, SPRS submissions, annual affirmations, and flowdown to subcontractors on every applicable contract.
In Modern Requirements, the loop's stations are governed work items: every 800-171 control traced to the security requirement it satisfies, the implementation that delivers it, and the evidence behind the SPRS score you affirmed. When the reform lands — whatever shape it takes — a queryable record adapts in days. A binder starts over.
One requirements thread, across the acquisition lifecycle
Whatever pathway the program rides — major capability, middle tier, or the software acquisition pathway — the gates keep asking the requirements record the same questions. Baselines at every milestone keep the answers immutable; the thread keeps them current in between.
Materiel solution analysis
Capability needs captured as traceable items with rationale
Tech maturation & risk reduction
Requirements derived, allocated, quality-scored — SRR, SFR
Engineering & manufacturing development
PDR, CDR, TRR baselines; V&V evidence accumulating on the thread
Production & deployment
Configuration audits (FCA/PCA) answered from live links
Operations & support
ECPs impact-assessed against the fielded baseline
Demil & disposal
Obligations and configurations answered from the record
Why programs invest here: GAO's portfolio-wide finding is blunt — early, detailed systems engineering separates the programs that deliver from the ones driving cost growth across a ~$2.4 trillion portfolio. And the cost curve inside a single program is just as blunt: a requirements defect costs tens of dollars to fix at authoring and five figures after fielding. The thread is the cheapest place the program will ever fix anything.
Next: the five governed workflows that run a defence program day to day.
Next: Workflows →Governed workflows
Five workflows that run a defence program
Each workflow is enforced inside Azure DevOps. Every state has an owner, every transition has a rule, and every approval is logged with an immutable audit trail. They ship as the defence configuration of Modern Requirements4DevOps.
Flowdown & allocation
From contract clause to supplier allocation with nothing lost in translation. Contract requirements are decomposed with trace intact, allocated across subsystems and suppliers with rationale and interfaces attached, and every allocation carries its verification method from birth — so the evidence has an address before the work starts.
Contract req captured
SOW/SRD clauses as structured items with source
Derived & scored
System requirements quality-checked before review
Allocated
To subsystems and suppliers, interfaces defined
Flowed down
With rationale, V&V method, and return path for evidence
Validated
Right requirement, right level — e-signed
Baselined
Immutable at the gate; flowdown status computed live
Engineering change proposals
Change under contract, with the impact analysis done before the board convenes. Suspect links flag every design item, supplier allocation, and test a proposed change touches; cost and schedule impact are recorded on the item; and the baseline history explains every configuration the program has ever fielded.
ECP drafted
Linked to the items it proposes to modify
Impact computed
Suspect links across designs, allocations, tests
Impact assessed
Cost, schedule, contractual consequence recorded
Board decision
Approve, defer, reject — e-signed with rationale
Implemented
Affected items updated; flagged tests re-run
Baseline updated
Difference report auto-generated for the record
Verification & milestone gates
The right side of the V, pointed at the gates. Every requirement carries a verification method — test, analysis, inspection, demonstration — executed at step-level depth with evidence linked. Gate packages assemble from live data, and coverage at the current baseline is the number the TRR actually needs.
Method assigned
T / A / I / D per requirement, per level
Procedure approved
Reviewed for adequacy against the requirement
Executed
Results at Test Run and Step Run depth
Evidence linked
Reports, run data, dispositions attached
Gate conducted
Package from live data; findings tracked to closure
Gate closed
E-signed; baseline locked; next phase opens
System safety & hazard tracking
The 882E discipline as a live thread: hazards identified and risk-assessed, mitigating requirements derived with severity and probability carried through decomposition, and residual risk formally accepted at the right authority level — with the hazard tracking system and the engineering backlog finally being the same system.
Hazard identified
Logged with system state and mishap potential
Risk assessed
Severity × probability per the 882E matrix
Mitigation derived
Safety requirement traced to the hazard it controls
Implemented
Design and code items linked at the assessed level
Verified
Evidence rigor matched to the risk level
Residual risk accepted
E-signed at the required authority; audit-ready
Compliance & audit evidence
The workflow that keeps the SPRS score honest and the CDRL deliveries on time. Security controls live as traced requirements with implementation and verification evidence attached; deliverable documents generate from live data in the required formats; and when the assessor, DCMA, or the program office asks, the answer is a filtered view — not a fire drill.
Control scoped
800-171 control mapped to CUI boundary and systems
Requirement derived
Security requirement as a first-class work item
Implemented
Config and code changes linked with IDs
Evidence verified
Test results and configuration snapshots attached
Assessed & scored
Self-assessment backed by linked evidence; POA&M tracked
Affirmed & delivered
Annual affirmation and CDRL outputs from live data
Next: every framework a defence program answers to, mapped to capability.
Next: Compliance →Einhaltung
Every framework a defence program answers to, mapped to capability
From acquisition policy to cybersecurity certification, Modern Requirements maps the artifacts in your Azure DevOps environment to the frameworks below — obligation by obligation.
| Framework | What it governs | How it's covered inside Azure DevOps |
|---|---|---|
| DoDI 5000.97 | Digital engineering — the digital thread as authoritative source of truth | Requirements live as linked digital artifacts, not documents — the flowdown story program offices now ask suppliers to demonstrate |
| DoDI 5000.87 | Software acquisition pathway — iterative delivery with continuous oversight | Requirements, tests, and releases on one thread beside the pipelines — evidence of value delivery per iteration, not per decade |
| CMMC 2.0 · 32 CFR 170 | Cybersecurity certification for the defence industrial base — phased, contract-triggered, flowed down | 800-171 controls as traced requirements with implementation and verification evidence behind every SPRS score and affirmation |
| NIST SP 800-171 | Protecting CUI in nonfederal systems — 110 security requirements | Each control traced: requirement → implementation → evidence, with POA&M items as governed work items |
| ITAR / EAR | Export control of defence articles and technical data | Deploys inside your boundary — Azure DevOps Server on-prem, your identity model, with BYO-LLM / on-prem AI options for the AI layer |
| ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 · 29148 | System life cycle processes and requirements engineering | Lifecycle-structured workflows; requirement items carry 29148-aligned attributes, quality-scored against INCOSE characteristics |
| EIA-649 | Configuration management — identification, control, status accounting, audit | Immutable baselines, difference reports, variant management — FCA/PCA answered as a query over live data |
| MIL-STD-882E | System safety — hazard identification through residual risk acceptance | Hazard-to-mitigation trace with risk levels carried through decomposition and evidence rigor matched to level |
| DO-178C · DO-254 | Airborne software and hardware — objectives per design assurance level | Objective-to-evidence traceability at execution depth, with baselines and signed reviews ready for SOI audits |
| AS9100 | Aerospace quality management systems | Design and development control evidence — reviews, approvals, change records — generated from live work-item history |
Every mapping is bidirectional. Pick an obligation, see which artifacts satisfy it. Pick an artifact, see which obligations it serves. When the program office, DCMA, an assessor, or a certification authority asks "show me," the answer is a filtered view of live data — not a binder someone maintains.
Next: the foundation, the AI layer, and the agents layer.
Next: The platform →The foundation · Modern Requirements4DevOps
One digital thread, from contract clause to signed evidence
Modern Requirements4DevOps makes every artifact below a real Azure DevOps work item or a Modern Requirements virtual work item. The links are live. Nothing is exported, synced, or reconstructed — the document is a view of the data, not a copy of it.
Specs and CDRLs built from work items
Author the documents a defence program runs on — SRDs, subsystem specs, ICDs, verification plans, CDRL deliverables — as structured documents where every clause is a traceable, versioned work item. Word and Excel imports bring legacy specifications in with hierarchy intact, so the thread starts from what you already have.
Configuration control that matches how you field
Freeze any work-item set into an immutable baseline at every gate — SRR through PCA — and compare any two with a difference report. Variant management keeps block upgrades and export configurations side by side, each with its own traceable requirement set instead of forked spreadsheets.
Traceability into test execution, not just test plans
Horizontal and vertical matrices generated on demand from live link data — contract clause down to the test that verifies it. Virtual work items extend the trace into execution depth: Test Point, Test Run, Test Result, Test Step Run. Verification coverage is computed, not claimed.
Gate reviews where the work lives
Formal review cycles with item-by-item navigation, threaded findings, and e-signatures bound to work-item versions — who signed off on what, at which revision, with complete history. Smart Report turns the same live data into specification, trace, and compliance reports, export-ready in minutes.
Built inside Azure DevOps. Deployable inside your boundary.
Many requirements tools connect to Azure DevOps. Connection means synchronization — and synchronization is where threads break, baselines fork, and audit findings are born.
External RM tool, synced to Azure DevOps
- Two systems of record; sync jobs decide which one is true today
- The thread crosses a tool boundary — matrices exported and rebuilt per gate
- A separate SaaS surface to clear through security — often a non-starter for ITAR/CUI
- Engineering works in one tool, requirements live in another — drift is structural
- Evidence assembled per audit: days of reassembly, every time
Modern Requirements, native in Azure DevOps
- One system of record — requirements are work items, links are link data
- The thread spans contract → design → code → test execution in one graph
- Lives inside your boundary — cloud, GCC, or Azure DevOps Server on-prem, inheriting your identity and permissions
- Engineers never leave their environment — the thread maintains itself as work happens
- Evidence is continuous: gate and audit packages generate from live state in minutes
The AI layer · Copilot4DevOps
AI that clears your security review, not just your demo
Defence programs don't get to use AI that ships program data to an uncontrolled endpoint. Copilot4DevOps puts AI-assisted requirements work inside Azure DevOps — with deployment options built for export-controlled and classified-adjacent environments — so every generated artifact lands in the managed lifecycle with authorship, review, and trace links intact.
Decompose
Turn a contract clause or high-level requirement into complete, well-formed sub-requirements — structured, linked to their parent, ready to flow down, in a single click. The engineer reviews and accepts; the decomposition arrives with its trace already built.
Analyze quality
Every requirement scored against INCOSE requirement-quality characteristics — ambiguities flagged with concrete rewrites before review. An ambiguous requirement caught at authoring costs minutes; caught in operational test, it costs the program.
Change impact
Real-time impact assessment over your actual link graph — the full ripple of an ECP across designs, supplier allocations, and tests before the board convenes. The CCB meets with the analysis done, not to commission it.
Diagramm
Generate use-case, flow, and model diagrams directly from requirements to validate shared understanding fast — linked to live work items and always current, a practical on-ramp toward the model-based practice DoDI 5000.97 points at.
The agents layer · Agents4DevOps
The routine work of the thread, executed by agents. Engineers approve.
Agents4DevOps runs the repetitive, high-volume work a defence program generates — flowdown gap patrols, coverage checks, gate and audit package assembly — under policy controls you define, with an engineer's decision at every consequential step.
Flowdown & coverage patrols
Agents patrol the thread as work happens: supplier allocations without returned evidence, requirements without V&V methods, hazards without verified mitigations, broken traces after an ECP — surfaced and packaged for repair weeks before the gate, not the night before.
Gate & audit package assembly
One prompt assembles the CDR package, the SOI audit set, the FCA/PCA evidence, or a CDRL delivery — specifications, trace matrices, coverage reports, baselines, and signed approvals pulled from live data, validated, and staged for human review.
Compliance evidence upkeep
Controls drifting from their evidence, POA&M items aging past their dates, affirmation packages due — agents keep the compliance record continuously current, so the SPRS score is something the program can defend on any given Tuesday.
Plain-English commands that act
Tell it "show every supplier allocation on the sensor subsystem without verification evidence, and draft the follow-ups" — and the agent queries the live thread, creates the tracking items, and stages the output for engineering review.
A capacity multiplier for your best engineers, not a replacement for them. Agents execute under policy controls you define; engineers review, decide, and sign. Every agent action runs through governed accounts and the same audit trail as everything else in the system.
Next: six roles working inside one program thread.
Next: Who it's for →Who it's for
One program thread. Six roles working inside it.
Every workflow on this page has named owners because that's how a defence program actually runs — systems engineering owns the decomposition, the CCB owns the baseline, the risk authority owns residual risk. Here's what each role does inside the same system, instead of in six disconnected tools.
Owns the thread, not the spreadsheet
Systems engineers own decomposition, allocation, and interfaces. Requirements are authored as traceable items with parent links from birth, Copilot drafts the tedious parts, and "where does this contract clause land?" is answered by the trace tree, not a matrix rebuild.
Status accounting as a query
PMs own the gates, the baselines, and the answer to "where are we, really?" Gate packages assemble from live data, difference reports write the change story between milestones, and flowdown status is computed from links — not compiled from supplier emails the week before the review.
Audit answers that survive scrutiny
QA owns the evidence the auditors see — DCMA, SOI, FCA/PCA, AS9100. Reviews carry e-signatures bound to item versions, every change is attributed, and the audit package is a report of the thread's state rather than a reconstruction of it.
A defensible SPRS score
The CMMC lead and FSO own the boundary and the affirmation. Every 800-171 control traces to its requirement, implementation, and evidence; POA&M items age visibly; and the annual affirmation is signed over a record that can be queried, not a binder that has to be believed.
The thread inside the daily workflow
Software teams stay in Azure DevOps — requirements sit beside the boards, repos, and pipelines they already use, on-prem where the program demands it. Commits carry requirement IDs, test results auto-link, and the software pathway's iterative evidence accumulates as a by-product of shipping.
Coverage that survives change
V&V owns method assignment, procedures, and execution evidence. The trace extends to Test Run and Step Run depth, coverage is computed at the current baseline, and an ECP flags every affected procedure the moment it lands — not at TRR.
Next: blogs and a webinar to go deeper.
Next: Resources →Resources
Go deeper on defence & aerospace compliance.
Blogs and a webinar on defence and aerospace compliance managed in Azure DevOps — MIL-STD-882E, DFARS, DO-254 and AI for large defence systems.
Next: the 90-day rollout and the questions strong buyers ask.
Next: Getting started →Implementation
A use-case-driven rollout, not a platform project
We don't turn on the full platform on day one. The rollout starts with one requirement thread, traced end to end, so the team experiences a real win in the first sprint — and by day 90, holds a gate-ready evidence package.
One thread, end to end
- Deployed into your Azure DevOps — cloud, GCC, or Server, inside your boundary
- One contract requirement traced to verified test evidence
- Smart Doc structure mirrored from your current specs
- First trace matrix in the chief engineer's hands
Requirement set moved in
- Active spec imported from Word/Excel as structured items
- Legacy IDs preserved as attributes
- ECP and review workflows live with e-signatures
- First Copilot4DevOps quality scores on the backlog
Role-based training, four tracks
- Systems eng — Smart Docs, decomposition, flowdown
- V&V — method assignment, execution evidence
- Quality & compliance — baselines, audits, control trace
- Software & program mgmt — code linking, status views
First gate package
- PDR/CDR-style package assembled by Agents4DevOps
- Coverage dashboard live at the current baseline
- Internal mock review run against the package
- Package exported for your next real gate or audit
What "gate-ready" means, measurably
Full bidirectional trace on at least one requirement family · the active specification migrated with ECP workflow live · and a review package generated from live data that passes an internal mock gate review.
The questions strong buyers ask
What a decision maker will want answered before talking to anyone
The questions chief engineers, program managers, and compliance leads actually ask when they evaluate a system that will hold their program's thread. Straight answers, including where the honest answer is "that stays in your GRC or PLM."
We're ITAR / handle CUI / work classified-adjacent. Can this run inside our boundary?
The architecture is designed for it: Modern Requirements runs inside your Azure DevOps environment — including Azure DevOps Server for on-premises and disconnected deployments — inheriting your identity model, permissions, and network boundary rather than adding a new SaaS surface. For the AI layer, Copilot4DevOps supports bring-your-own-data, bring-your-own-LLM, and on-prem AI configurations, so AI assistance doesn't mean program data leaving your boundary. [CONFIRM with product: supported Azure DevOps Server versions, GCC/GCC-High positions, and current on-prem AI deployment options]
Does this make us CMMC compliant?
No tool makes you compliant, and you should distrust any that claims to. What Modern Requirements does: it makes your compliance demonstrable — every 800-171 control traced to the security requirement it satisfies, the implementation that delivers it, and the verification evidence behind your SPRS score. Your GRC processes and system security plan stay yours; the requirements thread is where the engineering evidence behind them lives. With Phase 2 certification paused for reform review, the queryable record is also your hedge: whatever shape the program takes, evidence that can be filtered and exported adapts in days.
We're on DOORS. What does moving actually look like?
Staged by program, not big-bang. Word and Excel imports bring structured requirement sets into Smart Docs with hierarchy intact, and existing IDs are preserved as attributes so references in contracts and past submissions stay resolvable. Most teams move the active program first and keep legacy programs read-only in DOORS until retirement. Coexistence is normal for a season; two live systems of record for the same program is the thing to avoid. [CONFIRM with product: ReqIF import support and current DOORS migration tooling]
Our prime demands specific data deliverables (CDRLs). Can this produce them?
Yes — that's what Smart Report and document generation exist for. Specifications, trace matrices, verification cross-reference matrices, and status reports generate from live work-item data into Word and PDF formats structured to your DID requirements. The difference from the status quo isn't the format the prime receives — it's that the deliverable is a report of the thread's state, produced in minutes, instead of a document someone maintained by hand between deliveries.
We're adopting MBSE / SysML v2. Does this compete with our modeling tool?
No — it's the requirements thread the model needs. MBSE tools own architecture and behavior models; Modern Requirements owns the governed requirements record: authoring, quality, flowdown, change control, verification evidence, and signatures. With SysML v2's formal adoption and DoDI 5000.97's digital-thread mandate, the direction is models and requirements as linked digital artifacts in one thread. Document-based teams get a visual on-ramp through the Diagram module; teams deep in MBSE keep their modeling tool and link the thread. [CONFIRM with product: current SysML v2 API / OSLC integration story]
We're a sub, not a prime. Is this sized for us?
The flowdown problem is worst one tier down — you receive requirements as PDFs, return evidence as email attachments, and carry CMMC obligations without a prime's compliance staff. Modern Requirements deploys per Azure DevOps organization and scales down cleanly: one program, one team, the same thread discipline. Suppliers who can demonstrate live traceability are increasingly easier to team with — the thread is a business-development asset, not just an engineering one.
What do auditors and the program office actually receive?
Documents — because reviews still run on documents. Smart Report produces specifications, horizontal and vertical trace matrices, coverage and gap reports, baseline difference reports, and approval histories with signature records, formatted for your reviewer. For formal gates and audits, baselines, approvals, and trace reports assemble into a single submission-ready package. The difference is that the document is a report of live state — so it never disagrees with the system it came from.
Ready? Scope a defence working session with our team.
Book a working session →Talk to us
See it on a program shaped like yours
A working session with our defence team — in a demo environment preloaded with a flowed-down requirement set, V&V matrix, hazard thread, and gate baselines. Your standards, your vocabulary, your boundary constraints.
- Walk one thread end to end: contract clause → allocation → supplier evidence → locked baseline
- Run a live ECP impact assessment and watch the suspect links land
- Watch a gate review package assemble from live work-item data
Prefer to look before you talk? Watch the five-minute technical demo — Smart Docs authoring, live traceability into test execution, and e-signature review workflows, screen-recorded in the live product. Watch the demo — no form →
Book a defence working session
Tell us about your program. We'll come prepared with your standards, not a generic tour.
