Fitness for Purpose & Best Practice Review

Fitness-for-purpose assessments require a detailed comparison of what was delivered against what was contractually required. This begins with a close reading of the specification, statement of work, or requirements documentation, followed by an examination of the software itself (through testing, code review, or analysis of defect logs) to determine whether the delivered system meets each requirement. In my experience, the specification documents in disputed projects are not always clear or complete, and part of the expert's role is to identify ambiguities and explain how they may have contributed to the dispute. The assessment must be grounded in what was reasonably achievable given the agreed scope, timeline, and budget, rather than an idealised standard.

Code quality assessment involves the examination of source code against recognised industry standards and best practices for the relevant technology and context. This may include analysis of code structure and maintainability, test coverage and testing strategy, documentation, dependency management, security practices, and adherence to established coding conventions. The relevant benchmark is the standard of a reasonably competent developer or development team operating in comparable circumstances. I set out the specific criteria and benchmarks used in my report so that they are transparent and can be evaluated by the opposing expert and the court.

Best-practice review extends to the processes and practices surrounding the development, including requirements management, testing and quality assurance, deployment procedures, and change control. In my experience, this assessment depends heavily on the specific facts of the matter, including the size and complexity of the project, the maturity of the organisations involved, and the contractual framework within which the work was carried out. Where an agile approach was adopted, the governance and documentation must be assessed against agile standards rather than those of a traditional waterfall methodology, and vice versa.