I completely agree with this approach. Using a production environment for testing can create unnecessary risks, especially when live customer data and critical business operations are involved. Even small testing mistakes can lead to data corruption, downtime, or unexpected system behavior that affects real users.
Creating a recent copy of the production environment in a safe non-production setup is a much more reliable strategy. It allows teams to validate updates, run real-world checks, and identify issues without risking operational stability. This process also improves confidence in deployments because testing happens in conditions that closely match the live environment.
A structured testing workflow like this is essential for long-term reliability, whether managing enterprise systems or maintaining content-driven platforms focused on topics like Dunkin Donuts menu with prices 2026, where stability and user experience still matter for consistent traffic and trust.
------------------------------
Margaret Sophie
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: Fri April 10, 2026 11:27 AM
From: Mark Robbins
Subject: Testing Verification in Production
As Tinnokesh AP says Production shouldn't be used for testing.
If there are problems then you risk corrupting the production data.
It also shows a lack of confidence in the release process.
The best way forward is to:
- Copy the production data to a non-production environment
- Implement the changes there
- Implement real world checks / processes
- Check the data / system in the non-produuction environment
- You should gain confidence because the system is a recent copy of the production system
- Any problems can be handled safely
------------------------------
Mark Robbins
Technical Design Authority / IBM Champion 2017 - 2025
Cohesive (previously Vetasi Limited)
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/maximo-support-advice-from-non-ibm-engineer-article-mark-robbins/
------------------------------