Skip to main content

Acceptance Criteria

When your QA team tests your product before release, you want it to satisfy the requirements that your product manager has specified. But as I have mentioned before, while requirements should always be testable in principle, it is not always practical to test them directly before release. When a requirement is not directly testable before release, what should your QA do to ensure the product satisfies it?

Your product manager, designers, and QA team should collaborate to agree on acceptance criteria. In many cases, acceptance criteria for a product are exactly the same as the requirements. But when it's not possible to test a requirement directly, you can define separate acceptance criteria that indirectly give you confidence that the requirement is met.

One example I have given of a requirement that may not be practical to directly test before release is:
Take, for example, the requirements for a new, super-reliable model of car. We might specify that the car should last seven years without repairs as long as the owner maintains the car according to a certain maintenance schedule and doesn't have a collision. But it is not possible to directly test whether the product meets these requirements without producing the car and driving it for seven years.
What corresponding acceptance criterion could you use to test this requirement before release?

The question becomes: "What can I test about the car before release so that I can be confident that the car would last seven years?" Designers and testers will be most qualified to answer this question, but one possibility is to set up a simulation that accelerates the wear and tear on the car. If the car lasts one week in the simulation, then we might be able to extrapolate that it would last seven years under real-life conditions.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

Use Case as a Black Box

Consider the following use case: Purchase Items Actor: Purchaser Precondition: Purchaser types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40. Postcondition: For the average Purchaser acting at full efficiency, the number of seconds elapsed is no more than 30 + 20 * n, where n is the number of items purchased. The name of the use case represents a functional requirement. What does the product do, or enable the user to do? Purchase items. What are we to make of the preconditions and postconditions? What relationship do they have to the requirements for the product? Answer: the preconditions and postconditions are the nonfunctional requirements attached to the functional requirement . Another way of expressing the nonfunctional requirement would be as an attribute and associated constraint: Usability: For a Purchaser who types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40, it shall take no

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