Defect Lifecycle Management across Mock, SIT, and UAT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15680/IJCTECE.2020.0303005Keywords:
Defect Lifecycle Management, Mock Testing, SIT, UAT, Defect Tracking, Root Cause Analysis, Regression TestingAbstract
Large-scale system migration programs typically execute functional and technical validation across three sequential test phases: Mock cycles, System Integration Testing (SIT), and User Acceptance Testing (UAT). Each phase carries a distinct tolerance for defects, a distinct participant profile, and, in mature programs, a distinct service level agreement (SLA) governing how quickly defects must be triaged, fixed, and retested. Without a defined SLA framework, defect backlogs accumulate unevenly across phases, severity classification drifts between teams, and go-live readiness decisions are made on inconsistent evidence
Large-scale system migration programs typically execute functional and technical validation across three sequential test phases: Mock cycles, System Integration Testing (SIT), and User Acceptance Testing (UAT). Each phase carries a distinct tolerance for defects, a distinct participant profile, and, in mature programs, a distinct service level agreement (SLA) governing how quickly defects must be triaged, fixed, and retested. Without a defined SLA framework, defect backlogs accumulate unevenly across phases, severity classification drifts between teams, and go-live readiness decisions are made on inconsistent evidence
The remainder of this article is organized into 18 numbered sections and two appendices, moving from defect taxonomy and phase characteristics, through SLA and workflow design, into metrics, governance cadence, risk prioritization, exit criteria, and illustrative multi-cycle data.
References
1) Black, R. (2009). Managing the Testing Process (3rd ed.). Wiley.
2) Capgemini, Sogeti, & Micro Focus. (2018). World Quality Report 2018-19. Capgemini Group.
3) Gartner, Inc. (2017). Best Practices for IT Service Level Agreements. Gartner Research.
4) Humphrey, W. S. (1995). A Discipline for Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley.
5) IEEE. (2009). IEEE Std 1044-2009, IEEE Standard Classification for Software Anomalies. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
6) ISO/IEC. (2011). ISO/IEC 25010:2011, Systems and Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE). International Organization for Standardization.
7) International Software Testing Qualifications Board. (2018). Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus. ISTQB.
8) Jones, C. (1997). Software Quality: Analysis and Guidelines for Success. International Thomson Computer Press.
9) Jones, C. (2008). Applied Software Measurement: Global Analysis of Productivity and Quality (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
10) Kan, S. H. (2002). Metrics and Models in Software Quality Engineering (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley.
11) Myers, G. J., Sandler, C., & Badgett, T. (2011). The Art of Software Testing (3rd ed.). Wiley.
12) Project Management Institute. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) (6th ed.). Project Management Institute.
