What could be my risk mitigation strategies if my client wants to contract UAT?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







6















My client wants to squeeze UAT into 6 working days from originally planned 10 working days. This is because they want to go live because of an impending business reason. As a risk mitigation strategy I have proposed for 4 weeks of hypercare instead of general 2 weeks. I have also proposed for complete execution of UAT scripts within first 3 days of UAT and then to retest the defects along with the second iteration of execution in remaining 3 days. How else can I mitigate this risk?










share|improve this question

































    6















    My client wants to squeeze UAT into 6 working days from originally planned 10 working days. This is because they want to go live because of an impending business reason. As a risk mitigation strategy I have proposed for 4 weeks of hypercare instead of general 2 weeks. I have also proposed for complete execution of UAT scripts within first 3 days of UAT and then to retest the defects along with the second iteration of execution in remaining 3 days. How else can I mitigate this risk?










    share|improve this question





























      6












      6








      6


      1






      My client wants to squeeze UAT into 6 working days from originally planned 10 working days. This is because they want to go live because of an impending business reason. As a risk mitigation strategy I have proposed for 4 weeks of hypercare instead of general 2 weeks. I have also proposed for complete execution of UAT scripts within first 3 days of UAT and then to retest the defects along with the second iteration of execution in remaining 3 days. How else can I mitigate this risk?










      share|improve this question
















      My client wants to squeeze UAT into 6 working days from originally planned 10 working days. This is because they want to go live because of an impending business reason. As a risk mitigation strategy I have proposed for 4 weeks of hypercare instead of general 2 weeks. I have also proposed for complete execution of UAT scripts within first 3 days of UAT and then to retest the defects along with the second iteration of execution in remaining 3 days. How else can I mitigate this risk?







      risk-management testing quality






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited May 20 at 12:48









      Mark C. Wallace

      6,6512 gold badges23 silver badges39 bronze badges




      6,6512 gold badges23 silver badges39 bronze badges










      asked May 20 at 5:30









      JarvisJarvis

      1485 bronze badges




      1485 bronze badges

























          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          13















          “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. Sherlock Holmes




          A logical corollary is that it is a capital mistake to devise risk mitigation strategies before stating a risk. There is no risk in your question. Your client wants to compress UAT. Before mitigating the risk, I would advise you precisely state the risk.




          • What is it that you are uncertain about?

          • What are the potential consequences (good or bad)?

          • How likely is it that the consequences will happen? Do you have data to estimate? Can you get data?


          Why is this important? Why am I being so rigid & formulaic about this? Because the client has a business need to go live faster than the schedule permits. My job as a PM is to advise the client - in order to do that, I need to know the relative value of the business need and the risk(s). I can't mitigate what I don't understand.



          Based on the information you've presented, I would infer the presence of several risks.



          Given that all code is buggy and we're compressing UAT




          1. IF there exists an important bug THEN internal users will have a reduced user experience. It may take longer to complete the task, or increase frustration. This can be managed with additional support.


          2. IF there is an important bug, THEN internal users may make errors in completing their task; this might cost the company money, clients, and completely undermine the business value of the advanced start.


          3. IF there is an important bug that affects external users, THEN external users may be so dismayed that they will go elsewhere, irreversibly damaging the company's reputation and ability to attract customers.



          There are a few more - based on information that isn't presented in the question. But breaking the risks down this way gives me more mitigation strategies




          • Can I roll out the live site to a small set of cooperative/expert users first? Treat weak 1 as an extended UAT? Make sure the users have the knowledge and the contact information needed to quickly correct errors?


          • Can I maintain both interfaces for a period of time and switch high value/high risk/ customers to the old, migrating the friendlier, more experienced users to the new?


          • Can I maintain both for a period and run high risk interactions on the old, and low risk on the new?


          • What is the failback strategy? If on day Live +1, I discover a bug that has a million dollar implication to the company, how quickly can I revert back to prevent a second million dollar loss?



          SomeAdd questions that I'd want to research before talking to my client




          • In UAT, historically, what % of the bugs are found in week 1, week 2, etc. Is it a long tail curve? What is the estimated probability that the compressed UAT period will actually uncover/resolve bugs? There is a big difference between a 1% chance of losing a million dollars of business and a 10% chance of losing a million dollars of business.




          Addendum - thank you for this question - it has clarified some of my thoughts. I've suspected for a while that the value of risk management is more the discussion of risk than the actual measurement of risk. This question has enabled me to restate that idea



          The better you understand the risk, the more options you have to respond to it profitably. Discussion of risk, formal statements, of risk, etc. These are all ways to better understand and share knowledge of risk.






          share|improve this answer



































            4














            There is not silver bullet to mitigate skimping on quality assurance. I don't know in what field you are in, but what you can do depends on what the cost is to deploy a new version to your users.



            Generally speaking, you do the same post launch care you would do anyway. You must remember that mean time to recovery is your key metric and since you know that QA was shortened, you should plan for an above average defect rate. This means you need to have your engineers at the ready to get fixes out. So in your case, having more people available may be a better thing than a longer care period. (If that is even possible.)



            Further, in my experience, the key determining factor in QA is the test - fix - retest loop and no mater of automation is going to reduce the manual step of analyzing and fixing the defect. You are primarily removing time to fix the defects, not reducing testing.






            share|improve this answer

































              3














              Mark provided a great answer, especially the lead in where he asks what is the risk? Reducing duration on an effort would signal a risk in most cases to most of us, I would suspect, but I think Mark's thinking is spot on because mitigation would be driven off the fact of your risk exposure caused by the reduction of days and where the original duration was when planned, i.e., did you estimate on the fat side of the curve for UAT originally.



              That being said, assuming you've taken on additional risk exposure secondary to the reduction of duration, add UAT testers and developers to fix the findings if you can afford to pay for them. Else, you are in contingency mode. The extra weeks in hypercare are appropriate, increasing communications to leadership about the imminent number of defects that will be found after go live would be appropriate, a planned exit strategy where you can roll it back would be appropriate, communications to the user community about what they might see and what to do about it would be appropriate.






              share|improve this answer

































                3














                You might want to consider prioritising the features you test.



                By restricting your testing to the most important features you may be able to get a more thorough test-fix-retest cycle in within the aloted time.



                The chances of bugs reaching production will likely increase, but the likelihood of high impact bugs is hopefully reduced.






                share|improve this answer




























                  Your Answer








                  StackExchange.ready(function() {
                  var channelOptions = {
                  tags: "".split(" "),
                  id: "208"
                  };
                  initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

                  StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
                  // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
                  if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
                  StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
                  createEditor();
                  });
                  }
                  else {
                  createEditor();
                  }
                  });

                  function createEditor() {
                  StackExchange.prepareEditor({
                  heartbeatType: 'answer',
                  autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
                  convertImagesToLinks: false,
                  noModals: true,
                  showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
                  reputationToPostImages: null,
                  bindNavPrevention: true,
                  postfix: "",
                  imageUploader: {
                  brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
                  contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
                  allowUrls: true
                  },
                  noCode: true, onDemand: true,
                  discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
                  ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
                  });


                  }
                  });














                  draft saved

                  draft discarded


















                  StackExchange.ready(
                  function () {
                  StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpm.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f26435%2fwhat-could-be-my-risk-mitigation-strategies-if-my-client-wants-to-contract-uat%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                  }
                  );

                  Post as a guest















                  Required, but never shown

























                  4 Answers
                  4






                  active

                  oldest

                  votes








                  4 Answers
                  4






                  active

                  oldest

                  votes









                  active

                  oldest

                  votes






                  active

                  oldest

                  votes









                  13















                  “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. Sherlock Holmes




                  A logical corollary is that it is a capital mistake to devise risk mitigation strategies before stating a risk. There is no risk in your question. Your client wants to compress UAT. Before mitigating the risk, I would advise you precisely state the risk.




                  • What is it that you are uncertain about?

                  • What are the potential consequences (good or bad)?

                  • How likely is it that the consequences will happen? Do you have data to estimate? Can you get data?


                  Why is this important? Why am I being so rigid & formulaic about this? Because the client has a business need to go live faster than the schedule permits. My job as a PM is to advise the client - in order to do that, I need to know the relative value of the business need and the risk(s). I can't mitigate what I don't understand.



                  Based on the information you've presented, I would infer the presence of several risks.



                  Given that all code is buggy and we're compressing UAT




                  1. IF there exists an important bug THEN internal users will have a reduced user experience. It may take longer to complete the task, or increase frustration. This can be managed with additional support.


                  2. IF there is an important bug, THEN internal users may make errors in completing their task; this might cost the company money, clients, and completely undermine the business value of the advanced start.


                  3. IF there is an important bug that affects external users, THEN external users may be so dismayed that they will go elsewhere, irreversibly damaging the company's reputation and ability to attract customers.



                  There are a few more - based on information that isn't presented in the question. But breaking the risks down this way gives me more mitigation strategies




                  • Can I roll out the live site to a small set of cooperative/expert users first? Treat weak 1 as an extended UAT? Make sure the users have the knowledge and the contact information needed to quickly correct errors?


                  • Can I maintain both interfaces for a period of time and switch high value/high risk/ customers to the old, migrating the friendlier, more experienced users to the new?


                  • Can I maintain both for a period and run high risk interactions on the old, and low risk on the new?


                  • What is the failback strategy? If on day Live +1, I discover a bug that has a million dollar implication to the company, how quickly can I revert back to prevent a second million dollar loss?



                  SomeAdd questions that I'd want to research before talking to my client




                  • In UAT, historically, what % of the bugs are found in week 1, week 2, etc. Is it a long tail curve? What is the estimated probability that the compressed UAT period will actually uncover/resolve bugs? There is a big difference between a 1% chance of losing a million dollars of business and a 10% chance of losing a million dollars of business.




                  Addendum - thank you for this question - it has clarified some of my thoughts. I've suspected for a while that the value of risk management is more the discussion of risk than the actual measurement of risk. This question has enabled me to restate that idea



                  The better you understand the risk, the more options you have to respond to it profitably. Discussion of risk, formal statements, of risk, etc. These are all ways to better understand and share knowledge of risk.






                  share|improve this answer
































                    13















                    “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. Sherlock Holmes




                    A logical corollary is that it is a capital mistake to devise risk mitigation strategies before stating a risk. There is no risk in your question. Your client wants to compress UAT. Before mitigating the risk, I would advise you precisely state the risk.




                    • What is it that you are uncertain about?

                    • What are the potential consequences (good or bad)?

                    • How likely is it that the consequences will happen? Do you have data to estimate? Can you get data?


                    Why is this important? Why am I being so rigid & formulaic about this? Because the client has a business need to go live faster than the schedule permits. My job as a PM is to advise the client - in order to do that, I need to know the relative value of the business need and the risk(s). I can't mitigate what I don't understand.



                    Based on the information you've presented, I would infer the presence of several risks.



                    Given that all code is buggy and we're compressing UAT




                    1. IF there exists an important bug THEN internal users will have a reduced user experience. It may take longer to complete the task, or increase frustration. This can be managed with additional support.


                    2. IF there is an important bug, THEN internal users may make errors in completing their task; this might cost the company money, clients, and completely undermine the business value of the advanced start.


                    3. IF there is an important bug that affects external users, THEN external users may be so dismayed that they will go elsewhere, irreversibly damaging the company's reputation and ability to attract customers.



                    There are a few more - based on information that isn't presented in the question. But breaking the risks down this way gives me more mitigation strategies




                    • Can I roll out the live site to a small set of cooperative/expert users first? Treat weak 1 as an extended UAT? Make sure the users have the knowledge and the contact information needed to quickly correct errors?


                    • Can I maintain both interfaces for a period of time and switch high value/high risk/ customers to the old, migrating the friendlier, more experienced users to the new?


                    • Can I maintain both for a period and run high risk interactions on the old, and low risk on the new?


                    • What is the failback strategy? If on day Live +1, I discover a bug that has a million dollar implication to the company, how quickly can I revert back to prevent a second million dollar loss?



                    SomeAdd questions that I'd want to research before talking to my client




                    • In UAT, historically, what % of the bugs are found in week 1, week 2, etc. Is it a long tail curve? What is the estimated probability that the compressed UAT period will actually uncover/resolve bugs? There is a big difference between a 1% chance of losing a million dollars of business and a 10% chance of losing a million dollars of business.




                    Addendum - thank you for this question - it has clarified some of my thoughts. I've suspected for a while that the value of risk management is more the discussion of risk than the actual measurement of risk. This question has enabled me to restate that idea



                    The better you understand the risk, the more options you have to respond to it profitably. Discussion of risk, formal statements, of risk, etc. These are all ways to better understand and share knowledge of risk.






                    share|improve this answer






























                      13












                      13








                      13








                      “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. Sherlock Holmes




                      A logical corollary is that it is a capital mistake to devise risk mitigation strategies before stating a risk. There is no risk in your question. Your client wants to compress UAT. Before mitigating the risk, I would advise you precisely state the risk.




                      • What is it that you are uncertain about?

                      • What are the potential consequences (good or bad)?

                      • How likely is it that the consequences will happen? Do you have data to estimate? Can you get data?


                      Why is this important? Why am I being so rigid & formulaic about this? Because the client has a business need to go live faster than the schedule permits. My job as a PM is to advise the client - in order to do that, I need to know the relative value of the business need and the risk(s). I can't mitigate what I don't understand.



                      Based on the information you've presented, I would infer the presence of several risks.



                      Given that all code is buggy and we're compressing UAT




                      1. IF there exists an important bug THEN internal users will have a reduced user experience. It may take longer to complete the task, or increase frustration. This can be managed with additional support.


                      2. IF there is an important bug, THEN internal users may make errors in completing their task; this might cost the company money, clients, and completely undermine the business value of the advanced start.


                      3. IF there is an important bug that affects external users, THEN external users may be so dismayed that they will go elsewhere, irreversibly damaging the company's reputation and ability to attract customers.



                      There are a few more - based on information that isn't presented in the question. But breaking the risks down this way gives me more mitigation strategies




                      • Can I roll out the live site to a small set of cooperative/expert users first? Treat weak 1 as an extended UAT? Make sure the users have the knowledge and the contact information needed to quickly correct errors?


                      • Can I maintain both interfaces for a period of time and switch high value/high risk/ customers to the old, migrating the friendlier, more experienced users to the new?


                      • Can I maintain both for a period and run high risk interactions on the old, and low risk on the new?


                      • What is the failback strategy? If on day Live +1, I discover a bug that has a million dollar implication to the company, how quickly can I revert back to prevent a second million dollar loss?



                      SomeAdd questions that I'd want to research before talking to my client




                      • In UAT, historically, what % of the bugs are found in week 1, week 2, etc. Is it a long tail curve? What is the estimated probability that the compressed UAT period will actually uncover/resolve bugs? There is a big difference between a 1% chance of losing a million dollars of business and a 10% chance of losing a million dollars of business.




                      Addendum - thank you for this question - it has clarified some of my thoughts. I've suspected for a while that the value of risk management is more the discussion of risk than the actual measurement of risk. This question has enabled me to restate that idea



                      The better you understand the risk, the more options you have to respond to it profitably. Discussion of risk, formal statements, of risk, etc. These are all ways to better understand and share knowledge of risk.






                      share|improve this answer
















                      “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. Sherlock Holmes




                      A logical corollary is that it is a capital mistake to devise risk mitigation strategies before stating a risk. There is no risk in your question. Your client wants to compress UAT. Before mitigating the risk, I would advise you precisely state the risk.




                      • What is it that you are uncertain about?

                      • What are the potential consequences (good or bad)?

                      • How likely is it that the consequences will happen? Do you have data to estimate? Can you get data?


                      Why is this important? Why am I being so rigid & formulaic about this? Because the client has a business need to go live faster than the schedule permits. My job as a PM is to advise the client - in order to do that, I need to know the relative value of the business need and the risk(s). I can't mitigate what I don't understand.



                      Based on the information you've presented, I would infer the presence of several risks.



                      Given that all code is buggy and we're compressing UAT




                      1. IF there exists an important bug THEN internal users will have a reduced user experience. It may take longer to complete the task, or increase frustration. This can be managed with additional support.


                      2. IF there is an important bug, THEN internal users may make errors in completing their task; this might cost the company money, clients, and completely undermine the business value of the advanced start.


                      3. IF there is an important bug that affects external users, THEN external users may be so dismayed that they will go elsewhere, irreversibly damaging the company's reputation and ability to attract customers.



                      There are a few more - based on information that isn't presented in the question. But breaking the risks down this way gives me more mitigation strategies




                      • Can I roll out the live site to a small set of cooperative/expert users first? Treat weak 1 as an extended UAT? Make sure the users have the knowledge and the contact information needed to quickly correct errors?


                      • Can I maintain both interfaces for a period of time and switch high value/high risk/ customers to the old, migrating the friendlier, more experienced users to the new?


                      • Can I maintain both for a period and run high risk interactions on the old, and low risk on the new?


                      • What is the failback strategy? If on day Live +1, I discover a bug that has a million dollar implication to the company, how quickly can I revert back to prevent a second million dollar loss?



                      SomeAdd questions that I'd want to research before talking to my client




                      • In UAT, historically, what % of the bugs are found in week 1, week 2, etc. Is it a long tail curve? What is the estimated probability that the compressed UAT period will actually uncover/resolve bugs? There is a big difference between a 1% chance of losing a million dollars of business and a 10% chance of losing a million dollars of business.




                      Addendum - thank you for this question - it has clarified some of my thoughts. I've suspected for a while that the value of risk management is more the discussion of risk than the actual measurement of risk. This question has enabled me to restate that idea



                      The better you understand the risk, the more options you have to respond to it profitably. Discussion of risk, formal statements, of risk, etc. These are all ways to better understand and share knowledge of risk.







                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited May 20 at 15:54

























                      answered May 20 at 13:08









                      Mark C. WallaceMark C. Wallace

                      6,6512 gold badges23 silver badges39 bronze badges




                      6,6512 gold badges23 silver badges39 bronze badges




























                          4














                          There is not silver bullet to mitigate skimping on quality assurance. I don't know in what field you are in, but what you can do depends on what the cost is to deploy a new version to your users.



                          Generally speaking, you do the same post launch care you would do anyway. You must remember that mean time to recovery is your key metric and since you know that QA was shortened, you should plan for an above average defect rate. This means you need to have your engineers at the ready to get fixes out. So in your case, having more people available may be a better thing than a longer care period. (If that is even possible.)



                          Further, in my experience, the key determining factor in QA is the test - fix - retest loop and no mater of automation is going to reduce the manual step of analyzing and fixing the defect. You are primarily removing time to fix the defects, not reducing testing.






                          share|improve this answer






























                            4














                            There is not silver bullet to mitigate skimping on quality assurance. I don't know in what field you are in, but what you can do depends on what the cost is to deploy a new version to your users.



                            Generally speaking, you do the same post launch care you would do anyway. You must remember that mean time to recovery is your key metric and since you know that QA was shortened, you should plan for an above average defect rate. This means you need to have your engineers at the ready to get fixes out. So in your case, having more people available may be a better thing than a longer care period. (If that is even possible.)



                            Further, in my experience, the key determining factor in QA is the test - fix - retest loop and no mater of automation is going to reduce the manual step of analyzing and fixing the defect. You are primarily removing time to fix the defects, not reducing testing.






                            share|improve this answer




























                              4












                              4








                              4







                              There is not silver bullet to mitigate skimping on quality assurance. I don't know in what field you are in, but what you can do depends on what the cost is to deploy a new version to your users.



                              Generally speaking, you do the same post launch care you would do anyway. You must remember that mean time to recovery is your key metric and since you know that QA was shortened, you should plan for an above average defect rate. This means you need to have your engineers at the ready to get fixes out. So in your case, having more people available may be a better thing than a longer care period. (If that is even possible.)



                              Further, in my experience, the key determining factor in QA is the test - fix - retest loop and no mater of automation is going to reduce the manual step of analyzing and fixing the defect. You are primarily removing time to fix the defects, not reducing testing.






                              share|improve this answer













                              There is not silver bullet to mitigate skimping on quality assurance. I don't know in what field you are in, but what you can do depends on what the cost is to deploy a new version to your users.



                              Generally speaking, you do the same post launch care you would do anyway. You must remember that mean time to recovery is your key metric and since you know that QA was shortened, you should plan for an above average defect rate. This means you need to have your engineers at the ready to get fixes out. So in your case, having more people available may be a better thing than a longer care period. (If that is even possible.)



                              Further, in my experience, the key determining factor in QA is the test - fix - retest loop and no mater of automation is going to reduce the manual step of analyzing and fixing the defect. You are primarily removing time to fix the defects, not reducing testing.







                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered May 20 at 11:17









                              riokirioki

                              2791 silver badge2 bronze badges




                              2791 silver badge2 bronze badges


























                                  3














                                  Mark provided a great answer, especially the lead in where he asks what is the risk? Reducing duration on an effort would signal a risk in most cases to most of us, I would suspect, but I think Mark's thinking is spot on because mitigation would be driven off the fact of your risk exposure caused by the reduction of days and where the original duration was when planned, i.e., did you estimate on the fat side of the curve for UAT originally.



                                  That being said, assuming you've taken on additional risk exposure secondary to the reduction of duration, add UAT testers and developers to fix the findings if you can afford to pay for them. Else, you are in contingency mode. The extra weeks in hypercare are appropriate, increasing communications to leadership about the imminent number of defects that will be found after go live would be appropriate, a planned exit strategy where you can roll it back would be appropriate, communications to the user community about what they might see and what to do about it would be appropriate.






                                  share|improve this answer






























                                    3














                                    Mark provided a great answer, especially the lead in where he asks what is the risk? Reducing duration on an effort would signal a risk in most cases to most of us, I would suspect, but I think Mark's thinking is spot on because mitigation would be driven off the fact of your risk exposure caused by the reduction of days and where the original duration was when planned, i.e., did you estimate on the fat side of the curve for UAT originally.



                                    That being said, assuming you've taken on additional risk exposure secondary to the reduction of duration, add UAT testers and developers to fix the findings if you can afford to pay for them. Else, you are in contingency mode. The extra weeks in hypercare are appropriate, increasing communications to leadership about the imminent number of defects that will be found after go live would be appropriate, a planned exit strategy where you can roll it back would be appropriate, communications to the user community about what they might see and what to do about it would be appropriate.






                                    share|improve this answer




























                                      3












                                      3








                                      3







                                      Mark provided a great answer, especially the lead in where he asks what is the risk? Reducing duration on an effort would signal a risk in most cases to most of us, I would suspect, but I think Mark's thinking is spot on because mitigation would be driven off the fact of your risk exposure caused by the reduction of days and where the original duration was when planned, i.e., did you estimate on the fat side of the curve for UAT originally.



                                      That being said, assuming you've taken on additional risk exposure secondary to the reduction of duration, add UAT testers and developers to fix the findings if you can afford to pay for them. Else, you are in contingency mode. The extra weeks in hypercare are appropriate, increasing communications to leadership about the imminent number of defects that will be found after go live would be appropriate, a planned exit strategy where you can roll it back would be appropriate, communications to the user community about what they might see and what to do about it would be appropriate.






                                      share|improve this answer













                                      Mark provided a great answer, especially the lead in where he asks what is the risk? Reducing duration on an effort would signal a risk in most cases to most of us, I would suspect, but I think Mark's thinking is spot on because mitigation would be driven off the fact of your risk exposure caused by the reduction of days and where the original duration was when planned, i.e., did you estimate on the fat side of the curve for UAT originally.



                                      That being said, assuming you've taken on additional risk exposure secondary to the reduction of duration, add UAT testers and developers to fix the findings if you can afford to pay for them. Else, you are in contingency mode. The extra weeks in hypercare are appropriate, increasing communications to leadership about the imminent number of defects that will be found after go live would be appropriate, a planned exit strategy where you can roll it back would be appropriate, communications to the user community about what they might see and what to do about it would be appropriate.







                                      share|improve this answer












                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer










                                      answered May 20 at 15:25









                                      David EspinaDavid Espina

                                      30.7k3 gold badges25 silver badges81 bronze badges




                                      30.7k3 gold badges25 silver badges81 bronze badges


























                                          3














                                          You might want to consider prioritising the features you test.



                                          By restricting your testing to the most important features you may be able to get a more thorough test-fix-retest cycle in within the aloted time.



                                          The chances of bugs reaching production will likely increase, but the likelihood of high impact bugs is hopefully reduced.






                                          share|improve this answer






























                                            3














                                            You might want to consider prioritising the features you test.



                                            By restricting your testing to the most important features you may be able to get a more thorough test-fix-retest cycle in within the aloted time.



                                            The chances of bugs reaching production will likely increase, but the likelihood of high impact bugs is hopefully reduced.






                                            share|improve this answer




























                                              3












                                              3








                                              3







                                              You might want to consider prioritising the features you test.



                                              By restricting your testing to the most important features you may be able to get a more thorough test-fix-retest cycle in within the aloted time.



                                              The chances of bugs reaching production will likely increase, but the likelihood of high impact bugs is hopefully reduced.






                                              share|improve this answer













                                              You might want to consider prioritising the features you test.



                                              By restricting your testing to the most important features you may be able to get a more thorough test-fix-retest cycle in within the aloted time.



                                              The chances of bugs reaching production will likely increase, but the likelihood of high impact bugs is hopefully reduced.







                                              share|improve this answer












                                              share|improve this answer



                                              share|improve this answer










                                              answered May 20 at 20:31









                                              Barnaby GoldenBarnaby Golden

                                              10.9k1 gold badge9 silver badges28 bronze badges




                                              10.9k1 gold badge9 silver badges28 bronze badges

































                                                  draft saved

                                                  draft discarded




















































                                                  Thanks for contributing an answer to Project Management Stack Exchange!


                                                  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                                  But avoid



                                                  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                                  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                                  To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                                  draft saved


                                                  draft discarded














                                                  StackExchange.ready(
                                                  function () {
                                                  StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpm.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f26435%2fwhat-could-be-my-risk-mitigation-strategies-if-my-client-wants-to-contract-uat%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                                  }
                                                  );

                                                  Post as a guest















                                                  Required, but never shown





















































                                                  Required, but never shown














                                                  Required, but never shown












                                                  Required, but never shown







                                                  Required, but never shown

































                                                  Required, but never shown














                                                  Required, but never shown












                                                  Required, but never shown







                                                  Required, but never shown







                                                  Popular posts from this blog

                                                  Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

                                                  He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                                                  Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029