User Acceptance Testing

Depends on the type of work. In the private sector, this is a good arrangement. In the contracts where the relationship is much more clearly delineated (such as government contracts), care must be exercised as you may be overstepping the legal boundaries of the arrangement.

However, the question poses a larger question. I have often felt that individuals specifically hired as 'testers' may or may not have the detail business knowledge required to be able to define a comprehensive, end-to-end test of an application for UAT. However, the Subject Matter Expert (SME) often faces two real-world issues - available time and knowledge of how to test an application. Therefore, these two individuals (the tester and SME) must work together to define the first cut of UAT. But be clear on who must lead this effort - it is the SME with input from the Tester and not the other way around.

I agree with the checks and balances comments. Often times after a large application goes live, there is much blame to share. Further, the questions of "how did we miss that?" often turn into a political football.

Because there are many stakeholders involved, part of the buy-in process must include a formal review of the UAT approach and tests by the representatives of these parties to ensure that their goals are being met. This is where the implementation vendor or IT Business Analyst usually joins the proceedings as a detached observer. It will be there role to provide input if requested but also to note additional insights into how to test the application.

Please note that I do not subscribe to most methodologies where the UAT approach and test scripts are written well after coding has been done. Instead, I believe the UAT approach must be defined during the detail design phase and the test scripts written simultaneously during the coding phase once the database is defined.