Markdown Editor

Test Strategy Template (ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-3)

Organisational or project test strategy: risk register, test levels and types, techniques, criteria, automation, defects, metrics

テスト・品質フルISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-3teststrategymath

使い方: Use it to set testing rules for an organisation or project before writing test plans. Fill the risk register in section 3 first, because levels, techniques and criteria should point back to risk IDs. The main pitfall is putting dates and names here; those belong in the test plan.

プレビュー

Test Strategy: [Organisation, programme or project name]

Complete test strategy for an organisation, programme or project. The structure follows the test strategy concepts of ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-3 (organisational test strategy and the strategy part of a project test plan). Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked Example, then remove what does not apply and record why in section 13.

Document control

FieldValue
Document ID[TS-ORG-001]
Strategy type[Organisational / Programme / Project]
Applies to[Organisation unit, product line or project name]
Version[0.1]
Status[Draft / In review / Approved / Superseded]
Owner[@test-manager]
Classification[Internal / Confidential / Public]
Last updatedYYYY-MM-DD
Next scheduled reviewYYYY-MM-DD
Related documents[Test policy], [Test plan TP-xxx], [Quality plan], [Risk register]

Approvals

RoleNameDecisionDate
Head of quality / test[@name][Approved / Rejected / Approved with comments]YYYY-MM-DD
Engineering lead[@name][Decision]YYYY-MM-DD
Product owner[@name][Decision]YYYY-MM-DD
Security lead[@name][Decision]YYYY-MM-DD

Revision history

VersionDateAuthorChange summary
0.1YYYY-MM-DD[@name]Initial draft for review
0.2YYYY-MM-DD[@name]Example: Added contract testing for partner APIs after risk PR-07 was raised
1.0YYYY-MM-DD[@name]Example: Approved by the quality steering group

Contents

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose and strategy type

This document sets out how [organisation / project] tests [products or system] so that release decisions rest on evidence proportionate to risk. It is a [organisational / project] test strategy. Project test plans inherit every rule in it unless a deviation is recorded in section 14.

1.2 Test objectives

IDObjectiveMeasure
OBJ-01Example: Prevent regressions in payment and checkout flowsZero escaped severity-1 or severity-2 defects in checkout per quarter
OBJ-02Example: Give fast feedback to developersPull request pipeline completes in under 15 minutes at p90
OBJ-03Example: Demonstrate conformance to accessibility targetWCAG 2.2 AA audit passes before each major release
[OBJ-nn][Objective][Measure]

1.3 Context

  • Products in scope: [product A], [product B], [shared platform].
  • Delivery model: [Scrum with two-week sprints / continuous delivery / phased V-model].
  • Regulatory drivers: [none / PCI DSS / ISO 13485 / accessibility law], which add evidence requirements in section 13.
  • Test policy implemented: [Test policy ID and version].

2. Scope of testing

2.1 In scope

ItemDescriptionNotes
Example: Web storefrontCustomer-facing React applicationAll supported browsers in 7.1
Example: Order serviceREST service and database schemaIncludes data migrations
[Item][Description][Notes]

2.2 Out of scope

ItemReasonTested by
Example: Payment gateway internalsThird-party certified componentVendor; we test the integration only
[Item][Reason][Party]

2.3 Assumptions and constraints

  • [Assumption, for example: production-like data can be generated synthetically without personal data.]
  • [Constraint, for example: the performance environment is shared and available two days per sprint.]

3. Risk-based approach

Testing effort is allocated in proportion to risk exposure. Product risks describe what could go wrong with the software; project risks describe what could stop testing from being effective.

3.1 Risk scoring

Each risk is scored on likelihood LL and impact II, both on a 1-5 scale, and the exposure is

E=L×I,1≤E≤25E = L \times I, \quad 1 \le E \le 25

ExposureBandTest treatment default
15-25HighSeveral levels, formal techniques, automated regression, independent review
8-14MediumAt least two levels, automated regression for the main paths
1-7LowOne level, checklist or exploratory testing

3.2 Risk register

IDTypeRiskLIETreatment (levels, types, techniques)Owner
PR-01ProductExample: Incorrect tax calculation for cross-border orders3515Unit tests with decision tables; API tests per tax region; UAT sign-off by finance[@name]
PR-02ProductExample: Checkout slower than 2 s at peak load3412Load and spike tests (section 4); production monitoring[@name]
PR-03ProductExample: Stored XSS through product reviews2510SAST in CI; security test cases from OWASP WSTG input validation category; annual pentest[@name]
PJ-01ProjectExample: Test environment unavailable for more than two days339Ephemeral environments per pull request; contract tests to reduce dependency[@name]
[ID][Product / Project][Risk][1-5][1-5][L x I][Treatment][@name]

3.3 Risk review cadence

Risks are reviewed at [each sprint planning / each release planning / monthly]. New features add risks before development starts; a risk whose exposure changes by more than one band triggers a review of its treatment.

4. Test levels and test types

4.1 Test levels

LevelObjectiveTest basisOwnerEnvironment
Unit (component)Verify logic of individual functions and classesCode, detailed designDevelopersDeveloper machine, CI
IntegrationVerify interfaces between components and servicesAPI contracts, architectureDevelopers and testersCI, ephemeral environment
SystemVerify end-to-end behaviour against requirementsSRS, user storiesTest teamSystem test environment
AcceptanceValidate fitness for use by business usersBusiness processes, acceptance criteriaProduct owner, usersUAT environment

4.2 Levels and types matrix

Test typeUnitIntegrationSystemAcceptance
FunctionalAutomated (devs)Automated contract and API testsAutomated E2E plus exploratoryScripted scenarios by users
PerformanceMicro-benchmarks for hot pathsService-level latency testsLoad, stress, soak, spikeNot applicable
SecuritySAST, dependency scanDAST on APIsPentest per release trainNot applicable
AccessibilityLint rulesComponent axe checksAutomated plus manual screen-reader passFeedback from users with assistive technology
UsabilityNot applicableNot applicableHeuristic reviewModerated sessions
CompatibilityNot applicableNot applicableBrowser and device matrix (7.1)Spot checks
Recovery and resilienceNot applicableFault injection on clientsFailover drillsNot applicable
[Type][Approach][Approach][Approach][Approach]

4.3 Confirmation and regression testing

Every fixed defect gets a confirmation test at the lowest level that can reproduce it, and that test joins the automated regression suite. The full regression suite runs [nightly and before every release]; a risk-based subset runs on every merge.

5. Test design techniques

TechniqueCategoryUse whenRequired for
Equivalence partitioningSpecification-basedInputs fall into classes treated the same wayAll medium and high risks with input fields
Boundary value analysisSpecification-basedOrdered ranges, limits, sizesAll numeric and length limits
Decision table testingSpecification-basedBusiness rules combine several conditionsHigh-risk rules (PR-01)
State transition testingSpecification-basedObjects have lifecycles (orders, accounts)Order and subscription lifecycles
Pairwise (combinatorial) testingSpecification-basedMany configuration parametersBrowser and locale matrix
Statement and branch coverageStructure-basedCode-level adequacyUnit tests of high-risk modules
Exploratory testing (charter-based)Experience-basedNew features, unclear requirementsEvery feature before release
Error guessing and checklistsExperience-basedKnown failure patternsLow-risk items

Coverage targets: [80%] branch coverage for high-risk modules, [60%] for the rest; every requirement linked to at least one passed test case.

6. Entry, exit and completion criteria

6.1 Entry criteria

LevelEntry criteria
UnitCode compiles; static analysis passes
IntegrationUnit tests pass; API contracts published
SystemBuild deployed to system test environment; smoke test passes; test data loaded
AcceptanceSystem test exit criteria met; UAT users trained; known-issue list published

6.2 Exit and completion criteria

CriterionTargetApplies to
Planned test cases executed100% of high-risk, 95% overallSystem, acceptance
Pass rate of executed tests>= 98%System
Open severity-1 defects0All
Open severity-2 defects0 without an approved workaroundAll
Requirements coverage100% of must-have requirements traced to a passed testSystem
Branch coverage>= [80%] high-risk modulesUnit
Performancep95 latency within SLA under target loadSystem

6.3 Suspension and resumption

Testing at a level is suspended when [the smoke test fails / more than 20% of tests are blocked / the environment is unstable for more than four hours]. It resumes when the cause is fixed and the smoke test passes again.

7. Test environments and test data

7.1 Environments

EnvironmentPurposeFidelity to productionRefreshOwner
Ephemeral (per pull request)Integration and E2E checksSame container images, stubbed third partiesPer pull requestPlatform team
System testSystem and regression testingSame topology, scaled downEach release candidateTest team
PerformanceLoad and resilience testingProduction sizing for tested tierBefore each performance cycleSRE
UATAcceptance testingProduction-like configurationEach releaseProduct operations

Supported client matrix: [Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Safari: latest two versions], [iOS and Android: latest two major versions].

7.2 Test data

  • Sources: synthetic generators by default; masked production extracts only with data protection approval.
  • Personal data: never copied unmasked into non-production environments.
  • Ownership: each test suite creates and cleans up its own data; shared fixtures are versioned with the tests.
  • Refresh: [weekly reset of system test database from the seed script].

8. Test automation strategy

The automated suite follows a test pyramid: many fast, isolated tests at the base and few slow, end-to-end tests at the top. The target split by number of tests is shown below.

RuleDetail
Pipeline gatesUnit and contract tests block merge; E2E smoke blocks deployment
Flaky testsA test that fails intermittently is quarantined within one working day and fixed or deleted within one sprint
Speed budgetPull request pipeline under [15] minutes; nightly suite under [2] hours
OwnershipThe team that owns the code owns its tests
What not to automateOne-off checks, rapidly changing UI under design, usability judgement
MaintenanceTest code follows the same review and coding standards as product code

9. Defect management

9.1 Severity scale

SeverityMeaningExample
S1 CriticalSystem unusable, data loss or security breach, no workaroundPayments charged twice
S2 MajorCore function broken, workaround is costlyCannot apply discount codes
S3 MinorNon-core function broken or core function degraded with easy workaroundSort order wrong on history page
S4 CosmeticNo functional impactMisaligned icon

Priority (P1-P4) is set by the product owner and expresses urgency of the fix, independent of severity.

9.2 Defect workflow

Triage happens [daily during system test, twice weekly otherwise] with the test lead, a developer lead and the product owner. Every defect records: ID, title, steps to reproduce, expected and actual result, environment, build, severity, priority, linked requirement or test case.

10. Test metrics

MetricFormulaUsed byDecision supported
Test execution progressexecuted / planned test casesTest leadIs the cycle on schedule?
Pass ratepassed / executedTest lead, release managerExit criterion 6.2
Defect densitydefects found / size (KLOC or story points)Quality managerWhich components need more review?
Defect detection percentagedefects found before release / total defects found within 90 daysHead of qualityIs the strategy effective?
Mean time to fix S1/S2average time from triage to closedEngineering leadStaffing and priority
Flaky test ratequarantined tests / total automated testsAutomation leadSuite health

Defect detection percentage is computed as

DDP=DpreDpre+Dpost×100%DDP = \frac{D_{\text{pre}}}{D_{\text{pre}} + D_{\text{post}}} \times 100\%

where DpreD_{\text{pre}} is defects found before release and DpostD_{\text{post}} is defects found in production within [90] days.

11. Roles and responsibilities

RoleResponsibilitiesIndependence
Head of quality / testOwns this strategy, approves deviations, reports quality to managementIndependent of delivery teams
Test manager / test leadWrites test plans, tracks progress, chairs triage, signs test completion reportsWithin programme
Tester / quality engineerDesigns and executes tests, maintains automation, reports defectsWithin team
DeveloperWrites unit and integration tests, fixes defects, keeps pipeline greenNot independent
Product ownerSets priority, accepts residual risk, leads acceptance testingBusiness side
Security testerSecurity testing and pentest coordinationIndependent team or external

12. Tools

CategoryApproved toolNotes
Test management[Tool name]Stores test cases, runs and traceability
Unit testing[Vitest / JUnit / pytest]Coverage via [tool]
UI automation[Playwright / Cypress]Runs headless in CI
API and contract testing[Postman / Pact]Contracts versioned in repository
Performance[k6 / JMeter / Gatling]Scripts in repository
Security[SAST tool], [dependency scanner], [DAST tool]Findings triaged weekly
Accessibility[axe-core], [screen readers in 7.1]Manual checks per release
Defect tracking[Issue tracker]Workflow in 9.2

13. Reporting

ReportFrequencyAudienceContent
Test status report[Weekly / per sprint]Project teamProgress, blockers, new risks, defect trend
Test completion reportEnd of each test level or releaseRelease boardResults against criteria, residual risks, recommendation
Quality dashboardContinuousEveryonePipeline health, coverage, open defects by severity
Strategy effectiveness review[Quarterly]Quality steering groupDDP, escaped defects, changes proposed to this strategy

Evidence retention: test results, reports and approvals are retained for [two years / the regulatory period] in [system].

14. Deviations and tailoring

A project that cannot follow a rule in this strategy records the deviation below and in its test plan, with the compensating measure.

IDRule deviated fromProjectReasonCompensating measureApproved byDate
DEV-01Example: 8. E2E suite gates deploymentLegacy billingNo stable UI test hooksManual smoke checklist signed per deployment[@head-of-quality]YYYY-MM-DD
[DEV-nn][Rule][Project][Reason][Measure][@name]YYYY-MM-DD

15. Glossary and references

15.1 Glossary

TermMeaning in this document
Test basisThe documents or knowledge from which test cases are derived
Test levelA group of test activities organised around one stage of integration
Test typeA group of tests aimed at one quality characteristic
ExposureLikelihood multiplied by impact of a risk
Escaped defectA defect first found in production

15.2 References

  • [Test policy, version]
  • [Quality management plan, version]
  • ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119 series, Software and systems engineering: Software testing (parts 1-3)
  • [Project test plans that implement this strategy]

Standard and licence note

Structure aligned with ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-3, Software and systems engineering: Software testing, Part 3: Test documentation, organisational and project test strategy concepts. This template is original text written for this collection and reproduces no text from the standard; obtain the standard from ISO, IEC or IEEE for its normative requirements. Template licence: MIT.

関連テンプレート