Which of the following is not a criterion for developing capacity alternatives? a attempt to smooth out capacity requirements b prepare to deal with capacity in "chunks" c design structured, rigid systems d take a big-picture approach to capacity changes e identify the optimal operating level

The correct answer is option C "design structured, rigid systems."

Explanation:

Unbending nature is the property of a structure that it doesn't twist or flex under an applied power. Something contrary to unbending nature is adaptability. In auxiliary inflexibility/regidity hypothesis, structures are shaped by assortments of items that are themselves unbending bodies, frequently expected to take basic geometric structures, for example, straight poles (line sections), with sets of articles associated by adaptable pivots. A structure is inflexible on the off chance that it can't flex; that is, if there is no persistent movement of the structure that safeguards the state of its unbending segments and the example of their associations at the pivots.

There are two basically various types of inflexibility or regidity. Limited or perceptible unbending nature implies that the structure won't flex, overlay, or curve by a positive sum. Minuscule unbending nature implies that the structure won't flex by even a sum that is too little to possibly be recognized even in principle. (In fact, that implies certain differential conditions have no nonzero arrangements.) The significance of limited inflexibility is self-evident, however microscopic unbending nature is additionally critical on the grounds that tiny adaptability in principle relates to genuine minute flexing, and subsequent crumbling of the structure.

i honestly have no idea