HKSM

A collaborative validation technique where customers and end users discuss needs and perform hands-on acceptance tests on deliverables. It enables quick feedback, objective pass/fail results, and formal acceptance decisions during Validate Scope.

Key Points

• Pairs real-time customer conversations with practical testing of the product or increment.
• Centers on acceptance criteria to drive objective pass/fail outcomes.
• Time-boxed, facilitated sessions that end in accept, reject, or change request decisions.
• Generates visible evidence such as test results, screenshots, and sign-off records.
• Can be run as UAT, demo-plus-test sessions, or focused validation workshops.

Purpose of Analysis

• Confirm that delivered scope satisfies agreed requirements and user needs.
• Expose gaps, defects, or misunderstandings before wider release.
• Translate qualitative feedback into measurable acceptance outcomes and change actions.
• Reduce rework and scope disputes through transparent, traceable results.

Method Steps

• Plan the session: objectives, scope items, participants with decision authority, and time-box.
• Prepare: align on acceptance criteria, test charters or scripts, environments, and data.
• Facilitate talks: clarify use cases, walk through expected outcomes, and confirm priorities.
• Execute tests: customers perform scenarios while the team observes and records evidence.
• Record outcomes: pass/fail per criterion, defects, usability notes, and improvement ideas.
• Decide: accept deliverables, log change requests, or schedule fixes and retests.
• Close: capture sign-off, update traceability, backlog, and lessons learned.

Inputs Needed

• Requirements baseline or product backlog items with clear acceptance criteria.
• Working increment, prototype, or deliverable ready for hands-on evaluation.
• Definition of Done and quality standards.
• Test cases, charters, or scenario outlines and test data.
• Test environment access, tools for capturing evidence, and defect logging mechanisms.
• Previous feedback, open issues, and relevant risks or constraints.

Outputs Produced

• Accepted deliverables with formal sign-off records.
• Work performance information such as pass/fail counts and coverage achieved.
• Defect and issue logs with severity and owner.
• Change requests for unmet needs, new findings, or scope adjustments.
• Updated backlog, traceability matrix, and test artifacts.
• Lessons learned focused on validation efficiency and stakeholder engagement.

Interpretation Tips

• Anchor judgments to acceptance criteria to avoid subjective debates.
• Distinguish defects (do not meet criteria) from enhancements (new requests) to route correctly.
• Use coverage metrics to confirm that critical scenarios and edge cases were exercised.
• When results are mixed, negotiate conditional acceptance with a clear remediation plan and retest date.
• Capture enough evidence to support audits and future regressions.

Example

A team validates a new “Funds Transfer” feature for a mobile banking app. Product owners and client representatives join a two-hour session to walk through priority scenarios and execute tests using masked test data.

• Talks clarify daily transfer limits, error messaging, and confirmation flows.
• Tests cover standard transfer, invalid account number, exceeded limit, and network retry.
• Results: three scenarios pass and are accepted; one fails due to missing validation, logged as a defect with a one-week fix and retest.
• Sign-off is recorded for the accepted scenarios, and the backlog is updated with the defect and an enhancement request for clearer confirmation text.

Pitfalls

• Vague or missing acceptance criteria leading to subjective decisions.
• Wrong participants or no decision authority, causing delays in acceptance.
• Unstable environments or data issues that mask true product quality.
• Over-scripted sessions that ignore real user workflows and edge cases.
• Poor evidence capture, making outcomes hard to audit or retest.
• Allowing scope expansion during the session instead of logging change requests.

PMP Example Question

A project manager schedules a time-boxed session where end users discuss expected behavior and execute hands-on tests to decide acceptance of new features. Which technique is being used?

1. Inspections.
2. Customer talks and tests.
3. Control charts.
4. Benchmarking.

Correct Answer: B — Customer talks and tests.

Explanation: This technique combines stakeholder conversations with acceptance testing to confirm deliverables meet criteria and to obtain formal acceptance during Validate Scope.