Why project validation doesn't check for human error by default and what it actually ensures.

The truth about project validation isn’t glamorous. It isn’t a magic spell that catches every human slip the moment it happens. Instead, validation is a careful check that a project is really delivering what it set out to do, within the limits it agreed to stay within. When someone says project validation by default looks for human error, that idea is off the mark. Here’s the thing you’ll actually see in Relativity PM work patterns: validation is about meeting requirements, satisfying stakeholders, and proving viability—not scanning for every wink and nudge of human missteps.

What project validation actually checks

Think of validation as a quality gate for outcomes, not a safety net for every mistake. Its primary job is to confirm:

• The outputs align with defined requirements and acceptance criteria.

• The project remains viable given its constraints—budget, time, scope, and risk tolerance.

• The deliverables can be used by the customer or sponsor as intended.

In practice, validation looks at artifacts like the defined success criteria, test results, acceptance records, and stakeholder sign-offs. It asks: does what we produced satisfy the problem we were trying to solve? Are the outcomes usable, measurable, and verifiable? It’s a thoughtful confirmation that the project is on track to deliver the expected value.

What project validation does not do

Validation isn’t a comprehensive audit of every action taken during the project. It doesn’t function as a watchdog that flags all human errors as a matter of course. You won’t find a blanket check for “every human misstep” baked into the process. Instead, validation centers on:

• Verifying conformance to agreed requirements and acceptance criteria.

• Confirming that the final state is workable for the intended audience.

• Demonstrating that the project’s outputs can be deployed, used, and sustained.

That distinction matters. If you lump validation together with all the careful guarding against human error, you end up with a process that feels heavier than it needs to be. In reality, other practices handle human error more directly, like risk management, quality assurance, and operational controls.

Where human error fits in (and how it’s managed)

Humans are part of every project team, and errors happen. They show up in miscommunications, skipped steps, or misinterpreted requirements. Those slip-ups don’t vanish with validation; they’re addressed through separate, ongoing activities:

• Risk management: identifying, assessing, and prioritizing problems that could derail the project.

• Quality assurance: building in checks to catch mistakes in how work is done, not just what’s produced.

• Reviews and testing: peer reviews, walkthroughs, unit tests, and integration tests that surface errors before they become big issues.

These mechanisms are like guardrails. They don’t wait for validation to catch errors; they act earlier to prevent mistakes from propagating. Validation then weighs whether the project’s end state still meets the goals despite any hiccups along the way.

A Relativity PM perspective: making validation practical

In Relativity PM work, you’ll often see validation woven into the lifecycle with practical, concrete steps. It isn’t about theoretical perfection; it’s about clarity, traceability, and real-world usability. Here are a few ways teams typically approach it:

• Define acceptance criteria up front. Before anything gets built, the team and stakeholders agree on what “done” looks like. The criteria should be specific, measurable, and testable.

• Build a traceability link from requirements to deliverables. A simple table or a lightweight tool map shows exactly which deliverable shows which requirement. This helps everyone see what’s covered and what isn’t.

• Use stakeholder reviews as milestones. Periodic sign-offs from the sponsor or client prove ongoing alignment and offer a chance to course-correct while it’s still cheap to adjust.

• Separate validation from day-to-day QA. Validation confirms that the right thing was built; QA confirms that the thing was built correctly. They walk hand in hand but answer different questions.

• Track meaningful metrics. Think requirement coverage, defect density, acceptance rate, and time-to-sign-off. Metrics should illuminate progress without burying the team in numbers.

A practical example to ground this

Imagine a data migration project within a Relativity environment. Validation would check that the migrated data meets the agreed data quality standards and that the migration outputs are usable by the end users. You’d verify things like data integrity, completeness, and correct mapping to the new schema. If a few records don’t migrate perfectly, validation asks: can these cases be accepted after a known remediation plan? It’s not about catching every human mishap; it’s about confirming the migration achieves the stated goals and remains viable for operators.

The difference between validation and risk/QA in everyday work

Validation sits at the intersection of goals and deliverables. Risk management and QA are the ever-present teammates who scrutinize how work gets done. Here’s a simple mental model:

• Validation asks: do we have something that meets the goals and is usable?

• QA asks: did we do the work correctly, according to process and quality standards?

• Risk management asks: what could trip us up, and how do we reduce those chances?

Keeping these roles separate helps teams stay nimble. Validation can be a clean, objective check on outcomes, while QA and risk management protect the process and the people behind it.

Common misconceptions to clear up

• Misconception: Validation is a human-error detector by default.

Reality: Validation confirms outcomes meet requirements; other practices handle human error.

• Misconception: Validation should cover every possible scenario.

Reality: Validation focuses on agreed, critical success criteria and real-world usability.

• Misconception: Validation slows everything down.

Reality: When done right, validation clarifies what “done” means and prevents costly rework later.

A few quick guidelines you can apply

• Start with a crisp acceptance criteria set for each major deliverable. If you don’t know what “done” looks like, validation will struggle to say yes.

• Use a lightweight traceability approach. A simple matrix linking requirements to deliverables makes gaps easy to spot.

• Involve the right people at the right moments. Stakeholder feedback is gold for validation; don’t wait until the end.

• Separate the check marks from the processes. Validation should be about the end state, not the how-to of every task.

• Keep the focus human-friendly. Metrics matter, but they should illuminate, not overwhelm.

A gentle analogy to anchor the idea

Think of validation like checking a recipe before serving a meal. You don’t inspect every chop and whisk; you taste the dish and compare it to what the guest expected. If the flavors line up and the dish looks right, you plate it with confidence. If something’s off, you adjust. The kitchen still relies on cooks, quality controls, and a plan, but validation is the moment you decide the meal is ready to be enjoyed.

What this means for Relativity PM teams

When teams around Relativity PM think about validation, they’re not chasing perfection in every step. They’re safeguarding the value the project promises. They’re asking: is this the right thing for the stakeholders? Can we deliver it within the constraints? Will the end users be able to use it effectively? If the answer to those questions is yes, validation has done its job well. If not, it’s a signal to revisit requirements, adjust scope, or shore up gaps with practical corrections.

In the end, the idea isn’t to catch every slip in real time, but to ensure the project’s outcome stands up to scrutiny and delivers real benefit. Validation is the compass that helps you steer toward a result that feels solid and usable to the people it’s for. Human error is a reality of any collaborative effort; validation is a steady, purpose-driven check that the destination remains clear, the path reasonable, and the end product ready for its intended use.

If you’re navigating Relativity PM work, remember this: define clear goals, keep the acceptance criteria tidy, and maintain a simple way to show that what you built actually helps people achieve what they set out to do. That combination—not a quest to catch every misstep—is what makes a project credible, resilient, and truly fit for purpose. And that, in turn, is what makes the entire process feel less like trivia and more like a meaningful achievement.