User Acceptance Testing (UAT) Schedule

This document defines a business-focused acceptance test of enterprise search and retrieval capabilities in a content management system. It reads as a concise UAT plan that maps business requirements to clear test situations and test cases. The UAT scope centers on how end users locate, view, and manage records: metadata search by file name, full-text search for terms such as litigation, browsing a File Plan (e.g., Accounts Payable), classification-based queries (paid invoice), keyword queries (Bids), fuzzy search, stemming, wildcard searches (Liti*), and date-range filters. It also verifies taxonomy/faceted navigation to narrow to insurance policies for houses in escrow. Result handling is in scope: sorting in list and thumbnail views, opening native formats (Word, Excel, email, TIFF), viewing prior versions (a practical time-travel mechanism), and confirming annotations and redactions display correctly.

A practical UAT test plan would define UAT prerequisites, UAT environment separate from production, and UAT participants (business users and UAT testers). Roles and responsibilities should include business process owners for business objective confirmation and requirements approval. UAT stages-planning, execution, and closeout-benefit from a UAT checklist, UAT readiness checklist, and UAT test plan template. Test scripts and test case steps should specify test data, the name of the tester, expected outcomes, pass/fail outcomes, and UAT acceptance criteria such as accuracy, permissions, and performance across end-to-end business flows.

During the UAT execution phase, teams capture UAT evidence, maintain a UAT findings log and defect logs, and drive defect management with defect severity and priority. Defect tracking, defect capture, and retesting support defect resolution. Progress reporting with dashboard visibility helps stakeholders monitor the UAT timeline, UAT execution defects, and risks.

UAT exit criteria and UAT exit sign-off culminate in UAT sign-off approval by the sponsor or designee, confirming readiness to go live and informing any post-go-live release plan. As UAT best practices, avoid scope creep, do not repeat system testing; distinguish UAT vs system testing, UAT vs integration testing, and UAT vs usability testing. Include compliance acceptance testing, operational acceptance testing, and business acceptance testing where appropriate.

Use cases span legal teams vetting litigation searches, finance verifying Accounts Payable retrievals, real estate validating escrow taxonomies, and regulated clinical study archives in an eCOA system across bring your own device and provisioned devices in development, test, and production environments.

Proposal Kit can streamline this effort with document assembly for a UAT project plan, automated line-item quoting for services, an AI Writer to build supporting documents, and an extensive template library for checklists, matrices, and reports, helping teams produce thorough UAT documentation with ease.

To deepen the picture, consider how a disciplined UAT testing process runs from the UAT phases, planning, execution, and closeout. A structured UAT kick-off or UAT kick-off meeting sets UAT governance, UAT roles and responsibilities, UAT stakeholders, and UAT entry criteria. Teams complete knowledge gathering and scope definition, producing a requirements document and, where applicable, a study protocol.

UAT design and UAT design mapping translate UAT user stories and business requirements into UAT test situations and UAT test cases with clear UAT test case steps. Test management emphasizes traceability and UAT matrix traceability, linking each step to acceptance criteria. Test data preparation yields reliable UAT test data, while UAT testers' training and UAT training cover tools, UAT recorder use, and UAT checklist best practices.

During execution, use a UAT separate environment within the organization's development, test, and production strategy: development environment for builds, test environment for system testing and integration testing, and a controlled UAT hosting environment separate from production, with regression testing supporting end-to-end testing of real-world situations. Encourage exploratory testing alongside scripted tests to surface usability issues. Defect reporting captures UAT defects with defect severity priority in defect logs consolidated for UAT retesting and UAT bug fixes.

UAT monitoring dashboards and real-time dashboards provide progress visibility on the project timeline, UAT outcomes, UAT pass fail, and UAT pass criteria. Collect UAT feedback via a UAT feedback form, apply a UAT risk-based approach for business impact, and maintain UAT automation only where appropriate (e.g., workflow automation for data loads, automated documentation of UAT test evidence).

Evaluation and closeout rely on a UAT summary report, UAT evaluation against UAT acceptance criteria, and UAT exit criteria sign-off. Ensure UAT sign-off communication and stakeholders sign-off; UAT sign-off confirms readiness for the production environment. Address UAT challenges and UAT mistakes, such as UAT scope creep, and do UAT too early, and distinguish UAT vs beta testing, alpha testing, unit testing, regression testing, and other acceptance testing types like contract acceptance testing to support user adoption.

Regulated teams can fold in data management review plan, study site monitoring, and EPRO consortium guidance, keeping UAT business processes business process-centric and driven by UAT real users.

Proposal Kit helps author the supporting UAT documentation with ease, including UAT scope definition, UAT test management narratives, UAT test plan artifacts, UAT sign-off process and UAT exit signoff pages, UAT approval records, UAT feedback forms, and matrix traceability sheets. Its document assembly, automated line-item quoting, AI Writer, and broad template library speed creation of consistent, professional UAT deliverables.

Expanding on the search-focused evaluation, teams benefit from a UAT step-by-step walkthrough for each search mode. For example, a tester selects metadata search, enters a file name, applies a date range, verifies results sort order, opens a native document, reviews prior versions, and records expected versus actual outcomes. This explicit sequence highlights the importance of UAT documentation because precise notes, screenshots, and UAT test evidence make defects reproducible and accelerate UAT defect retesting after fixes.

Position this work as UAT acceptance testing rather than technical checks. Business users validate that real queries, fuzzy search for misspellings, stemming for related terms, and taxonomy filters support decision making. Use lightweight UAT tools for test capture and time-stamped notes, and standardize UAT dashboards to show test throughput, pass/fail counts, and defect aging. Clear dashboards keep UAT project stakeholders aligned on risk and progress.

Establish UAT hosting environments that are separate from production with realistic data and permissions. This isolation safeguards records and mirrors business processes while preventing unintended changes in live systems. Document the promotion path so that fixes verified in UAT move into the production environment in a controlled release.

Foster UAT collaboration by pairing business process owners with testers during scenario dry-runs, then scheduling focused sessions for UAT defects retesting. Encourage short feedback cycles and daily syncs to confirm whether search-result accuracy, redaction visibility, and version history behavior meet expectations. Tie each observation to a requirement ID and record it in the summary so stakeholders can trace outcomes to commitments.

Finally, define ownership for communications: who publishes the daily UAT dashboards, who approves readiness, and how signoff is captured. A disciplined handoff ensures the organization enters go-live with confidence that users can find, sort, and view content as intended.

Writing the User Acceptance Testing (UAT) Schedule document