Talk:Concept of operations

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Mis-Categorized ?[edit]

The article content was describing the term "Concept of Operations" as system characteristics in system design. Yet scope is shown as in Military History, with categories of military hisory and military science and technology. The content does not seem to fit all of Military history, Military Science, and Military Technology or to even fit any one of them very well. Markbassett (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greater diverity and flexibility[edit]

The phrase "Concept of Operations" is a bit more generically in use. Besides the content about system design, I added mention of the military operations DoD definition and meaning, and sidenote that CONOPs then is a source or something summarized in acquiring a system for use in a military operation. But this is still not conveying (a) greater diversity of fields where the term is used, such as software development, or (b) the flexibility of range of how conceptual or how operational it is, according to the target audience and need. The OV-1 for example can be a storyboard showig a sequence of specific cartoon figures or it can be a mod art item or anywhere in between. To address this would seem prohibitive -- "Concept of Operations" is suitably descriptive as is, while it would take another section to the article to discuss that "It varies", and a section with subsections to ping places where the CONOP is applied, plus more reference or web sites to examples. Markbassett (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

System Operational Concept[edit]

This article references IEEE standards for the development of a ConOps. The standards referenced are superseded. The current version of the appropriate standards refers to the type of document described in this article as a ″System Operational Concept″ or OpsCon. The Concept of Operations (ConOps) as defined in those standards looked at the operation of a system or group of system from the organisational perspective rather than the user perspective. In general industry, there appears to be a significant amount of confusion regarding the difference between a ConOps and an OpsCon. The article should be updated to align with the standards it references or discuss the naming confusing in more detail.--Spuzzdawg (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation[edit]

Help me settle a debate I am having with some NASA colleagues, why would the spelling variation ConOps be preferred over con ops? --Mav-Tek (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]