From: Andrew Gabb (agabb@tpgi.com.au)
Date: Thu May 13 2004 - 09:34:22 EST
Ian F Alexander wrote:
> it sounds quite promising. But consider how to validate a
> sub-system design. Surely you have to follow the traces back
> to the sub-system requirements, and hence back to the system
> requirements, and then to the user requirements, and then to
> the stakeholders themselves.
Validation of interim products is where it gets a bit tricky, which is probably why some duck the issue. Design validation is really trying to show that the end-product-to-be will be fit for purpose - a noble and often worthwhile objective, quite obviously. For some elements of the design this is not going to be straightforward (or useful), such as validating the choice of a nut or bolt. It's more likely that in these cases the validation (if any) would apply to the assembly or subsystem.
OTOH, attempting to validate elements of the system can throw those elements into the spotlight from a usage viewpoint for the very first time, which can itself be valuable, as the performance of the elements can be considered in the various states, modes, activities of the system.
A user interface is a more obvious and easier candidate for validation, even though it may be the UI of a subsystem.
Finally, I don't really see this as a 'tracing' issue as such (as is used for verification). Instead I like to think of the subsystem-to-be performing as part of the total system. I really believe that if you can't do this, you aren't in a position to validate a subsystem.
Andrew
-- Andrew Gabb email: agabb@tpgi.com.au Adelaide, South Australia phone: +61 8 8342-1021, fax: +61 8 8269-3280 ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To send a message to this mailing list send it to re-online@it.uts.edu.au. To unsubscribe from this mailing list, email majordomo@it.uts.edu.au with the message `unsubscribe re-online' in the BODY of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Mon May 24 2004 - 09:00:19 EST