Disputed Acceptance Criteria Before CRM Go-Live
A CRM migration is three weeks from go-live. The business owner expects 99.9% availability, real-time dashboards, and zero manual re-keying. IT operations will sign off only when data migration reconciles to the cent and 14 critical defects are closed. UAT shows 14 critical defects, of which 5 are disputed as 'known limitations', and 3 are data mapping errors. The vendor's contract references a requirements appendix last changed eight weeks ago. The project manager has a decision log but no signed acceptance criteria. Two workshops have ended without agreement. The steering committee meets next week. The CEO has promised the go-live date at a trade show. No one has tested the rollback plan. The vendor says the disputed defects are out of scope.
1. How should the project manager establish an acceptance baseline that both parties can sign?
Read the worked answer
Use the existing evidence, not a new wish list. Bring the contract appendix, business case, decision log, UAT results, and rollback plan into one workshop. Separate must-have acceptance criteria from desirable criteria. For each criterion, define a measurable test: for example, 'reconciliation variance below €0.01 on the full data set' or 'dashboards refresh within 60 seconds for 95% of transactions'. Distinguish defects from enhancements and from known limitations accepted by the business owner.
Agree a dispute route for items that remain contested, with named decision-makers and dates. Record the signed criteria in the decision log. If the parties still will not sign, escalate to the steering committee with the unresolved items and their business impact. The project manager's job is to make the criteria explicit, not to force consensus by choosing one side.
2. What should be done about the five disputed defects?
Read the worked answer
Classify each disputed defect by business impact, workaround, frequency, and data risk. 'Known limitation' is not a status; it is a claim that needs evidence. For each defect, ask: can the business operate with a documented workaround, who accepts the residual risk, and by when will it be fixed?
The business owner should accept or reject operational risk; IT operations should confirm whether the defect affects reconciliation or supportability; the vendor should show whether the contract appendix covers it. Assign an owner and a date to each item. Do not let the vendor label all five as out of scope without checking the contract. Do not hide them in a go-live decision. If a defect creates a data-integrity or security risk, it should block go-live regardless of the trade show.
3. What recommendation should the project manager make to the steering committee if disagreement persists?
Read the worked answer
Present three viable options and recommend one on risk grounds:
- Delay go-live until the 14 critical defects and reconciliation issues are closed.
- Conditional go-live with a tested rollback plan, a dated defect-closure plan, and explicit business acceptance of residual risk.
- Phased rollout to a limited user group while dashboards or manual re-keying are completed.
The recommendation should weigh data integrity, the CEO's trade-show promise, support capacity, and the untested rollback plan. If the rollback plan is untested, conditional go-live is weak. The project manager should ask for an explicit decision, record it in the decision log, and make clear who owns each residual risk. Do not present the trade show as a reason to bypass acceptance criteria.