Test Estimation Under an Immovable Regulatory Deadline
A regulatory reporting module must be delivered in 6 weeks. The test manager estimates 900 test cases are needed based on requirements. Historical data shows the team executes about 30 cases per tester-day, with 4 testers available half-time because they also support production. That yields roughly 15 tester-days per week, or 90 cases per week, so 900 cases would take 10 weeks. The business cannot move the deadline. The requirements include 120 mandatory regulatory checks that must pass. The rest are functional and usability cases. The manager must decide how to plan.
1. Using the numbers given, show the capacity gap and propose a realistic test plan.
Read the worked answer
Capacity: 4 testers at half-time equals 2 full-time equivalents. At 30 cases per tester-day, that is 60 cases per week, not 90. Over 6 weeks that is 360 cases, against 900 planned, a gap of 540 cases or 60%. Even the manager's 90-per-week figure gives 540 cases in 6 weeks, still short of 900.
The plan must be risk-based. First, guarantee the 120 mandatory regulatory checks: these are non-negotiable and should be scheduled first, with buffer. That leaves 240 cases of capacity (at 60 per week) for the remaining 780 functional and usability cases, so prioritize by risk and business impact, and reduce or defer low-risk cases with documented rationale. Consider raising tester availability, automating stable high-volume regression, and using pairwise or equivalence techniques to cut redundant cases. Present the gap and the trade-offs to the sponsor explicitly; the deadline is fixed, so scope or capacity must flex.
2. What risks does this plan create, and how would you monitor them?
Read the worked answer
Risks: (1) mandatory regulatory checks may reveal defects late, consuming fix-and-retest time not in the estimate; (2) deferring functional cases leaves untested areas that could fail in production; (3) half-time testers may be pulled into production support, reducing capacity further; (4) compressing cases through techniques may miss edge conditions. Each risk should be recorded with an owner and a trigger.
Monitoring: track mandatory-check pass rate weekly, not just at the end; track cases executed versus planned by risk tier; log production-support hours to see actual availability; and record every deferred case with its rationale so the accepted risk is visible. Report a weekly burn-down and a defect-trend chart to the sponsor. Set a decision point, for example week 3, where if mandatory checks are not on track, the sponsor chooses between reducing scope and adding capacity. Early visibility lets the business decide, rather than discovering the gap at delivery.