Which method is most effective for reviewing requirement changes?

The most effective method for reviewing requirement changes is a formal approval process. This is primarily because a formal approval process ensures that all changes are systematically evaluated and documented, providing clarity and accountability. It typically involves a structured framework that outlines who can approve changes, what criteria are used for the evaluation, and how decisions are communicated to stakeholders. This systematic approach minimizes misunderstandings and ensures that all team members have visibility into what changes are being made and why.

A formal approval process also helps to mitigate risks associated with requirement changes. By requiring thorough review and approval from key stakeholders, it ensures that changes align with project objectives, stakeholder needs, and compliance requirements. This not only strengthens project governance but also facilitates better traceability of changes, which is crucial during subsequent phases of the project.

While individual feedback from team members and group discussions can provide valuable insights, they often lack the structured approach to ensure that all changes are monitored and approved through a consistent method. Similarly, third-party audits can be useful for an independent evaluation but are generally more effective at the end of a project or phase rather than during the dynamic phase of requirement changes. Hence, the formal approval process stands out as the most effective for reviewing requirement changes.