The Ultimate in Requirements Traceability: DBA

Requirements traceability refers to the ease of tracking the relationship of artifacts to product requirements throughout the development process. One form of requirements traceability involves slavishly documenting each design decision and precisely which requirement(s) it addresses. There's got to be a better way. And there is.

If your team isn't communicating well and your process is broken, you are likely to have some of the following problems:

Features that are "neat" but don't address requirements.
Designs that don't address requirements.
Difficulty adjusting to changing requirements, priorities, and scoping.
QA that doesn't know what to test.

For this reason, some managers are enamored with the concept of requirements traceability. An untrusting manager tries to impose some heavyweight processes to ensure these problems don't occur. Usually, the process usually involves some huge, complicated spreadsheet with all sorts of links between various items in artifacts.

Instead, why not nudge the team into adopting a few simple, lightweight practices?

Realize that test-driven development (TDD) goes a long way towards establishing a de facto requirements traceability. Encourage your team to "document" its requirements and interaction design decisions as test cases.

But you'll want to test frequently. Use demonstration-based agile (DBA), in which the team delivers a demo and submits things to QA for testing on a weekly basis.

Let's examine the effects of adopting these practices.

First, if design and implementation decisions conflict with the requirements, it will show when the tests fail.

Second, when requirements change, the test cases change, and any other changes that must happen will happen, otherwise the tests will fail.

Third, the weekly demos will ensure that product manager is able to trace or track adherence to the requirements.

Finally, and most importantly, your team will communicate frequently, which will likely improve the quality and efficiency of its output.

Rather than imposing requirements traceability in a heavyweight manner, use DBA.

Comments

Why Spreadsheets Suck for Prioritizing

The Goal As a company executive, you want confidence that your product team (which includes all the people, from all departments, responsible for product success) has a sound basis for deciding which items are on the product roadmap. You also want confidence the team is prioritizing the items in a smart way. What Should We Prioritize? The items the team prioritizes could be features, user stories, epics, market problems, themes, or experiments. Melissa Perri makes an excellent case for a " problem roadmap ", and, in general, I recommend focusing on the latter types of items. However, the topic of what types of items you should prioritize - and in what situations - is interesting and important but beyond the scope of this blog entry. A Sad but Familiar Story If there is significant controversy about priorities, then almost inevitably, a product manager or other member of the team decides to put together The Spreadsheet. I've done it. Some of the mos

Henry Ford's "Faster Horse" Quote

You may have heard the ( apocryphal ) Henry Ford quote: If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have said "a faster horse". Over at the On Product Management blog , Saeed gives his take on this infamous quote. He "hates" it, and gives some compelling reasons. Saeed is spot on in his explanations. Personally, I think the quote is great, but it's a matter of interpretation. The valid point of the quote is not that it's a bad idea to facilitate a conversation with your market to better understand it. The valid points are: You must ask the right questions to get valuable answers. You must interpret the answers thoughtfully - often outside their direct meaning - to glean reliable information. Asking questions is not always the best way to "listen" to your market. (E.g., sometimes pure observational studies are more reliable.) Nonetheless, I find the quote is helpful to combat "armchair product management" in the

Stop Validating and Start Falsifying

The product management and startup worlds are buzzing about the importance of "validation". In this entry, I'll explain how this idea originated and why it's leading organizations astray. Why Validate? In lean startup circles, you constantly hear about "validated learning" and "validating" product ideas: The assumption is that you have a great product idea and seek validation from customers before expending vast resources to build and bring it to market. Indeed, it makes sense to transcend conventional approaches to making product decisions . Intuition, sales anecdotes, feature requests from customers, backward industry thinking, and spreadsheets don't form the basis for sound product decisions. Incorporating lean startup concepts , and a more scientific approach to learning markets, is undoubtedly a sounder approach. Moreover, in larger organizations, sometimes further in the product life-cycle, everyone seems to have an opinio

Cauvin

Search This Blog