Case study
Tyre & Tube manufacturer
31 user stories nobody could test against.
The problem
A manufacturer had requirements written the way requirements usually are: as descriptions. They read reasonably and could not be tested. Two people could both deliver against the same story and disagree about whether it was done.
That ambiguity does not surface during development. It surfaces at UAT, when the client tests something they assumed and the developer built something else — and by then the argument is about scope, not about software.
What I did
- 01
Rewrote 31 user stories as Given / When / Then
Each one with acceptance criteria that can be executed and either pass or fail.
- 02
Covered Sales and HR end to end
The two areas where the process crossed the most departmental boundaries.
- 03
Made the BRD the single source of truth
Development and UAT run against the same document, so 'done' has one definition.
Outcome
31
User stories restructured
2
Departments covered
TBC
UAT defects at sign-off
Development and UAT ran against a single testable specification. Defect counts at sign-off TODO.
Artifacts produced
- Business requirements document
- Given/When/Then acceptance criteria
- UAT script
Next case study
Global Shipping & Logistics