The BMW Analogy : Why must there be a UAT?

An interesting conversation sparked up today when I was together with my users assisting them for UAT.

UAT. User Acceptance Test. It's a norm that is inserted in all software development lifecycles. It's a part of software development. To us in Info Tech, UAT is something we don’t really give a second thought to. We learnt it in our schools, we've seen our seniors prepare for it when we started our careers, we've heard our colleagues talk about it. There is nothing special about it - to us it has become a process that must be followed.

Ever stopped to ask why? Why should there be a UAT?

Well, this is the very question, these interesting users asked about.

Why must there be a UAT?

It's the first time I've heard that question!

Now the users who have been conducting UAT for my projects - be it for any company, are generally IT educated. UAT is a norm that they have been following in their companies. It's a part of software development in their companies. UAT is something we dont really give a second thought to. They've learnt it in their schools, they've seen their seniors prepare for it when they started their careers, they've heard their colleagues talk about it. There is nothing special about it - to them it has been a process that must be followed. The company says so... (See the trend?)

But this user was asking us today - Why must there be a UAT?

And the interesting analogy (considering that the company I am working for is one of the best solution developer companies in the world) that he gave was this:

User : If I buy a customized car from BMW, does the salesperson tell me "Thanks for the tons of money you paid for this car. Now drive this car around, and if the steering wheel comes off while you are driving, do come back to us and we will fix it for ya - for free!"
Me : Errrmm.... (Thinking : Is this a rhetorical question? Or do you want me to answer it?)

Hey, hey, hey, hold your horses... I know being in IT, you can rebut the BMW analogy with a million bullets, so can I...

But I took a step back and thought from the BMW point of view, can we make solutions that do not require UATs? Solutions that users can buy just like they buy products?

Just a thought...

Published Thu, May 18 2006 14:56 by Rohan Thomas

Comments

# re: The BMW Analogy : Why must there be a UAT?

Monday, May 22, 2006 3:09 AM by Arnon Rotem-Gal-Oz
Yes we can - these are called shrinked wrapped programs (Office, Acrobat, Oblivion whatever)
When we are taking about solutions the BMW analogy doesn't hold - it is more like buying a suit from a high-profile tailor - you need measurments up-front and then you come for a fitting before the final suit is handed to you

Arnon

# re: The BMW Analogy : Why must there be a UAT?

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 5:13 AM by Simon
I agree with Arnon's comments; UAT is more about "does this do what I asked for?" rather than "does this work?". It's basically a step taken because we know it is difficult to accurately and flawlessly understand a user's requirements, rather than to write high quality systems.

Still, an interesting analogy! Driving a GM car, I think UAT might not be such a bad idea for them :-)

# re: The BMW Analogy : Why must there be a UAT?

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 2:01 PM by Peter Ritchie
A more apt analogy would be requesting Boyd Coddington build you a car, based upon your specs. With an "off-the-shelf" car you just assume that the specs listed in the shiny pamphlets are correct and that the hundreds of other customers of the same car provide a level of acceptence where you don't have to check it matches the specs upon delivery. With a custom car you're going to scrutinize it a bit more to make sure you got what you asked for.

# re: The BMW Analogy : Why must there be a UAT?

Monday, June 19, 2006 9:07 PM by rape stories
Your article is prety nice. It's a pity that i didn't see it more later.

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(required) 
(optional)
(required)