Global Configuration Traceability Comparison

Context: Teams use Global Configuration Management to compare streams, baselines, and configurations. Today, comparisons focus mainly on configuration structure and component changes.

Problem: Changes in traceability links between configurations are not visible in GC. Users can identify structural differences but cannot see how relationships between requirements, work items, tests, and other engineering artifacts have evolved. And as many DOORS Next deployments, the decomposition model follows a one module = one component approach to enable baselining at the module level, it even occurred only using Doors Next and GC. Even though Insight can provide this information, it is complex to configure and use.

Impact: Traceability changes may go unnoticed, increasing the effort required for impact analysis, compliance reviews, and change validation.

Goal of the Idea: Provide a simple way to compare the evolution of traceability between two Global Configurations.

Why is it Useful?:

- Makes traceability changes visible and enable impact analysis in a GC context which is the whole point of using GC in ELM

- Make it possible to fully audit and make compliance reviews.

- Reduces reliance on complex custom reporting.

How Should it Work?:

- Extend Global Configuration “compare” to show added, removed, and modified (validity) traceability links between two configurations.

- Provide a preconfigured comparison report in JRS or Engineering Insights.

- Introduce a Traceability Comparison Explorer that highlights the impact of traceability changes between two Global Configurations.