UAT Plan

  # UAT Plan: <System>

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Business owner (accepts) | |
| UAT coordinator | |
| Window | |
| Environment | |
| Related | Test Plan v_, BRD v_ |


## 1. Objectives
What acceptance will and will not prove.

## 2. Participants
| Name | Role | Scenarios | Time committed |
|---|---|---|---|


## 3. Scenarios
| # | Business scenario | Participant | Data needed | Acceptance condition |
|---|---|---|---|---|


## 4. Environment and data
## 5. Entry criteria
## 6. Acceptance criteria
Including what "accept with conditions" requires.

## 7. Defect handling during UAT
Severity, response times, who decides.

## 8. Schedule
| Day | Activity | Who |
|---|---|---|


## 9. Sign-off
| Name | Role | Decision | Date | Conditions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
  

  # UAT Plan: Access Provisioning Service

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Business owner (accepts) | K. Ferreira, Head of People Operations |
| UAT coordinator | H. Ito |
| Window | 2026-11-17 to 2026-11-28 |
| Environment | uat, refreshed 2026-11-14 with anonymised production data |


## 1. Objectives
Prove that People Ops can run joiner, mover and leaver events without IT
involvement, that line managers can approve from a phone, and that Internal
Audit can answer an access question from the audit export unaided. It does not
prove performance or resilience — those are covered by the system test plan.

## 2. Participants
| Name | Role | Scenarios | Time committed |
|---|---|---|---|
| K. Ferreira | Head of People Ops | 1, 2, 6 | 4h |
| T. Blomqvist | People Ops administrator | 1–5 | 12h |
| Three line managers (rotating) | Approvers | 3 | 30 min each |
| L. Haddad | Internal Audit | 7 | 3h |
| D. Achebe | Service desk lead | 5, 8 | 4h |


## 3. Scenarios
| # | Business scenario | Participant | Data needed | Acceptance condition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Standard engineering joiner, start date in 10 days | T. Blomqvist | Anonymised joiner record | Access complete one working day before the start date, with no ticket raised |
| 2 | Joiner with an unmapped job code | T. Blomqvist | Job code with no bundle | Lands in the People Ops queue; administrator assigns a bundle and completes it without IT |
| 3 | Joiner needing extra access | Line manager | As scenario 1 plus an additional entitlement | Manager receives the request on a phone and approves it in under 3 minutes |
| 4 | Internal move between departments | T. Blomqvist | Mover record | Old entitlements removed, new applied, no manual cleanup |
| 5 | Leaver with immediate effect | D. Achebe | Leaver record dated today | All non-batch entitlements revoked within 1 hour; the ERP exception appears on the daily report |
| 6 | Bundle change | K. Ferreira | — | A bundle edit takes effect for new requests without an IT release, and does not alter pending requests |
| 7 | Audit question: who granted X to Y on date Z, and under which rule? | L. Haddad | Historical export | Answered from the export in under 5 minutes, without engineering help |
| 8 | Something goes wrong: a target system is down | D. Achebe | Simulated adapter outage | A ticket is raised with the correlation ID, and other entitlements still apply |


## 4. Environment and data
UAT runs on the `uat` environment, refreshed 2026-11-14 from a production copy
with names, email addresses and free-text justifications replaced by generated
values. Employee IDs are pseudonymised consistently, so managers, departments
and reporting lines still hang together — a randomised copy would make
scenarios 3 and 4 meaningless.

`uat` is connected to the vendor sandboxes, not to live target systems, so no
participant can grant real access by accident. It is shared with the Finance
reconciliation project; slots are booked (see section 10 of the test plan).

Two records were built by hand because the anonymised set contained no
employee without a line manager — the exact case scenario 2 needs. This is
noted in the test summary report, because it makes that scenario less well
evidenced than the rest.

## 5. Entry criteria
System test exit criteria met; zero open Sev-1; uat refreshed within 7 days;
participants trained (one 90-minute session on 2026-11-14).

## 6. Acceptance criteria
- All eight scenarios completed with their acceptance condition met.
- No Sev-1 or Sev-2 defect open at the end of the window.
- Participants complete scenarios without IT intervention, except where the
  scenario explicitly involves the service desk.

**Accept with conditions** is permitted only where the condition is written
down with an owner and a date. "Accept with conditions" without a dated
remediation is a rejection.

## 7. Defect handling during UAT
Raised in the tracker with the UAT label; triaged twice daily at 10:00 and
15:00. Sev-1 gets a fix or a workaround within one working day, Sev-2 within
three. The business owner decides severity disputes, not engineering.

## 8. Schedule
| Day | Activity | Who |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-11-14 | Environment refresh, 90-minute training session | H. Ito, all participants |
| 2026-11-17 | Scenarios 1 and 2 | T. Blomqvist |
| 2026-11-18 to 19 | Scenario 3, three managers rotating | Line managers |
| 2026-11-20 to 21 | Scenarios 4 and 5 | T. Blomqvist, D. Achebe |
| 2026-11-24 | Scenario 6 | K. Ferreira |
| 2026-11-25 | Scenario 7 | L. Haddad |
| 2026-11-26 | Scenario 8, simulated adapter outage | D. Achebe, Platform |
| 2026-11-27 | Defect fix window and re-test | H. Ito, developers |
| 2026-11-28 | Acceptance decision | K. Ferreira |


Triage runs at 10:00 and 15:00 every working day of the window.

## 9. Sign-off
| Name | Role | Decision | Date | Conditions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K. Ferreira | Business owner | Accepted with conditions | 2026-11-28 | ERP revocation latency: daily exception report to run from go-live, reviewed by People Ops; ERP fix tracked on the FY2027 roadmap. Owner: K. Ferreira, review 2027-03-31 |
| L. Haddad | Internal Audit | Accepted | 2026-11-27 | — |