How to visualise requirement/constraint realisations?

[Mallacoda]

I am relatively new to modelling software architecture so could use some advice.

• I have my requirements imported into EA.
• I have a range of models with elements and associations that realise these requirements.
• I have a compliance matrix that joins the dots.

However, I'm concerned that my models do not "visually" show the requirement realisations.
If you didn't already know that an element had an associated requirement you wouldn't know about it unless you went around selecting all the elements in a model.
And as my models will be passed onto a software designer, I want to ensure that they understand why certain elements are there, and also that they are immediately aware of the NFRs linked to those elements.

So, as I can't find a simple way to display these associations in the element compartments, I am considering adding requirement elements to the models so that the association can be seen.
However, this can create quite a "busy" diagram which would then be distracting, so I'm looking for a "better way".

I considered adding additional "Requirement Association" models, and linking to existing model elements, but seeing the elements out of context just didn't feel right.
I've considered added text fields next to elements listing requirements but that doesn't allow for the reading of the requirements in situ.

• What would be the best approach here?
• Is there a way to make an element visually indicate associated requirements/constraints without having to add more elements?
• Should I model each component separately so I can add the requirement elements?

Or am I just over thinking this?

[qwerty]

Simply create a requirements diagram for relevant element. Put the element in the center (higlighting it wit a thick border line) an add the related requirements. For the RE thats the best way to see that he does nor miss one and for the coder dito.

q.

[Mallacoda]

That doesn't solve my issue in that the model doesn't have any indicator that the associations exist.
And, apart from Components, you can't "click into" a diagram that would add those details.
Yes, with Components, I could use Composite Diagrams, which then adds a helpful icon to "look inside", but other elements won't allow that.

[qwerty]

You can create composite diagrams for any element, not only components. I did that all time. Our friend Paolo calls them neighborhood diagram and he has automation to keep them up-to-date.

q.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

You can create composite diagrams for any element, not only components. I did that all the time. Our friend Paolo calls them neighborhood diagrams and he has automation to keep them up-to-date.

q.

They are merely attached diagrams.  You get to have one attached diagram per item accessible via the double-click (indicated by the little chain link at the bottom right).  What you do with the diagram is your business.  As q says, we automated the process and created a diagram that shows all the linkages from the highlighted item (root vertex) one link out, suppressing the linkages that are not made to the highlighted item.  Hence, we can see the highlighted item's "neighborhood".

Paolo

[Mallacoda]

You can create composite diagrams for any element, not only components. I did that all time. Our friend Paolo calls them neighborhood diagram and he has automation to keep them up-to-date.

q.

Hrm then I'm missing something.

I'm using 16.1 and only a subset of the available elements give me an option for Child Diagrams.
Activity Diagram "Actions" & "Events", for example, does not allow for it. I can link a document, but not a diagram.

[Geert Bellekens]

True, there are a number of object types that don't allow composite diagrams.

There are ways to circumvent that limitation if you really want to (e.g. change the type, set the composite diagram, and change the type back again)

Geert

[qwerty]

EA is consistently inconsistent. The rationale for not allowing composite diagrams would likely be esoteric (since, as Geert pointed out, it's easy to circumvent). Well, as Paolo says: using EA despite of EA, not because of EA. :-/

(not sure how long I'll be joining the party. depends on how V17 will look like. My hope isn't set high)

q.