maintenance - Maintaining traceability up-to-date as project evolves -

During various projects, I needed to make sure that the use of the case model I developed during the analysis phase The project is covered. For this, I was able to use traceability and cases to some extent (also specifically identified) between the requirement statement (specific identity). In some cases, enabling traceability has made some extra efforts which I (and later proved) to be a good investment.

Now, the biggest problem was that to keep this practice later, when things began to change (as a result of change requests, or as a result of the change in use)

Any ideas of best practices for traceability maintenance?

(This may apply to other items in the project - use cases of case and test cases, or cases of requirements and acceptance testing)

< Strong> Later edit devices can help, but they can detect traces or errors in traceability. Navigation may be ... but there is no warranty that traceability is up-to-date or correct after applying the change.

I think that is one of the most difficult tasks of management in traceability requirements, to ensure that For that the requirements in the first place are correct, the second is. In my experience, the best traceability tool is human .

I do not have any pancakes; Whatever has helped me in the past, just a few suggestions.

• Keep a document in a central area where everyone can easily get them. I do not care whether it is Sharepoint, a wiki, or a network drive (though I like something that provides version control if possible). Keep it in one place and get out of the market so that everyone knows to use the old copies instead of interfering in the developers, instead of going there for the answer.
• If you have a central contact for managing artifacts, the functional group of them, which helps a lot, someone who understands them, and these issues will come to know which direction to go, whether the update And if there are dependencies that need to be carried forward
• The guardians of artifacts should be committed to them and keep them up to date. One year after setting some documents on a site, I still keep them updated. I know that most developers have to do this, but after one year, I still have been benefited by looking at those people who change functional requirements over time.
• Not required, but it is helpful to quickly identify the changes over time: Use the tracking of the document processor's edition. If it does not, then I will at least have a change log for the document. I can include or just mark new text with reference to version number.
• I have tried to keep dependency references in my artworks in the past, such as the references to other documents or artifacts, but it was found that they were either old or were rigid in tracking Therefore, it was not updated frequently, discipline could overcome it, but most of us have to do a lot, huh? So I think that there is a building in the Cross References between documents / artifacts, where I want a device or still have to release the management utility for free requirements to do some work):