Course Overview
Based on industry best practice and utilising real-life examples of projects that our consultants have worked on, this 2-day course will provide delegates with an introduction to those activities and responsibilities that are specific to User Acceptance Testing (UAT).
The course considers how UAT differs from other forms of testing, where in the life cycle it is performed (not simply immediately prior to delivery to live operations), who performs UAT (ideally as a co-operative activity between professional testers and the future users), which are the most appropriate testing techniques and how to apply them in practice. This two-day tutor-led course includes slides, exercises and practical work, and uses a hands-on approach based on group exercises and discussions. It is highly-interactive, allowing attendees to learn from the experience of the instructor and each other, and, owing to its interactive nature, each course is restricted to a maximum of 18 delegates. It looks at where UAT fits into different development life cycles, including traditional waterfall, the V-model and Agile and how to develop and appropriate UAT approach. The course also covers test planning and estimating, defect reporting and management, test execution and progress. The course is principally aimed at testers who are moving into a User Acceptance Test management or support role and those operational staff who are seconded to the User Acceptance Test team. It is also useful for those who are new to User Acceptance Testing such as project managers, business analysts, business managers and anyone who will be a user or customers of the systems being tested. Who is it for?
John Gillespie | DE&S Digital SCIS EAM (Air) LITS Application Manager | DE&S –
Very informative, confirming some practices we already undertake as well as expanding the knowledge of those on the team with no background in software.
Marc Paul Dowd | Chf Tech (RAF) Governance Manager | Defence Digital – SCIS – EAM (Air) – –
Course was delivered virtually, therefore interaction between Trainer and Students was affected. Content of slides were absolutely fine, but the Material provided ahead of Course was not used. The one or two documents that were referred to and would have been used were in PDF format and therefore couldn’t be amended. Some students resulted in making their own word/excel documents to carry out the exercises.
As for the exercises, I would have preferred using the same scenario (car purchase, limo business or Amazon purchases) as the same example for all exercises, with each exercise building up to the creation of a UATP. We could have then used all the material over the two days to end with a UATP on a product/service we’d been working with all week. Jumping between different scenarios didn’t help in my opinion. The final exercise was also a little rushed. 30 minutes to generate as much of a Test Plan as we could, most of which was made-up on the spot. I didn’t get anything out of the exercise at all. As mentioned, using the same scenario throughout the course and building up each exercise as an opportunity to build each section within the Test Plan would have been better. Course may have to extended over three days (maybe two and a half) to build the Test Plan up.
Lastly, I found some of the earlier exercises working individually good, then we moved into Teams which depending on the exercise was also good. Early exercises working individually meant we could create our own examples and bounce ideas off each other with the Trainer whereas some of the group exercises allowed some individuals to take a back seat. For the later exercises, having a group exercises meant we could confirm what was being asked of us and compile a document together, much like we would do in work.
Christopher Mee | JARTS Planner | RAF –
I was asked to undertake this course with a view to moving into a UAT Manager role within the next 6 months, having had no previous UAT experience (which was pretty daunting). The instructor delivered the course at a good pace, in an ideal order for learning and eased many concerns I had.
I tend to learn better within a classroom environment, interacting face-to-face, however this virtual course did not affect my learning, which was also helped by the other attendees being my future colleagues.
There were a few issues with MS Teams both with my personal equipment and generally but didn’t really affect us.
Most of us struggled to understand what was required with the automated telephone service exercise, which could be addressed for future courses. And an editable Word doc for writing the test plan would be helpful too.
All in all a good course, thanks Paul.
Hannah Morgan | Group Marketing Manager | GRC International Group –
John was really thorough in making sure we understood the context and theory behind UAT without delving too far into the technical side. He provided real life examples and helped us relate the theory to our own situations, which was super helpful. Thank you John!
Ioan Aulman | Team Leader, CSC Citizen Services | Bristol City Council –
I thought it was informative and John had a wealth of experience and knowledge that he was able to relate to our own business perspectives. He also made the course relevant to our current project circumstances. There were plenty of opportunities for interaction and to ask questions. I am much clearer about my role in the upcoming project testing we have; the course has prepared me well.
Dorothy Langley | Software QA Analyst | S2 Partnership Ltd –
I found the course was broken down well into sections and the regular breaks helped to avoid overloading us with new information! John was very informative and always happy to answer questions and to clarify things with examples. It is great to see you are able to run courses with a smaller group and I found the smaller group size was very beneficial. With courses now being virtual across the industry, I have found with a larger group (on a previous course I have been on), it is more awkward and harder to interact. Having a smaller group this time made it much easier to have discussions over what we were learning, helping to gain a better understanding, and overall, it made the experience more comfortable & successful.
Mark Thompson | Deputy Air Engineer Officer, 815 Naval Air Squadron | Royal Navy –
The course was very informative and pitched at the right level but it was difficult to cater for everyone with a very mixed experience level.
Henry Hill | EAM Appliction Support Manager (From Jan 23) | Royal Air Force –
The course was well presented and I was easily able to follow despite having no experience in this field. This was helped by real life examples.
Jothy Vellayan | Sustainability Capability Manager | Ministry Of Defence –
though i was aware of the basics of testing, this course about UAT was very useful and relatable for me in my current job. I enjoyed the learning and group sessions and brainstorming. and Angelina checked how it relates to our business. so it was useful to map the testing in industry.
Mike Flindell | | Mod –
Good trainer, few issues with zoom but resolved quickly!
Michael Cross | System Capability Manager | MoD –
A good coverage of UAT both for our purposes in defence as well as seeing how it fits into more commercial businesses.
Adam Cuthbert | Warrant Officer 2 | Royal Navy –
The course fully covered the requirements, and as I had, had no exposure to this before I found it very useful. Angelina was very knowledgeable and was able to aim the relevant content to the correct level, as there was people experienced in UAT on the course as well as few of us who had never done it before. The timing of the course was right with enough breaks to keep you engaged throughout the day.
I feel more confident being involved in the UAT within my work space now.