{"id":3729,"date":"2020-05-04T07:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-05-04T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.diogonunes.com\/blog\/?p=3729"},"modified":"2020-05-15T14:22:43","modified_gmt":"2020-05-15T13:22:43","slug":"risk-mapping-prioritisation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.diogonunes.com\/blog\/risk-mapping-prioritisation\/","title":{"rendered":"Automation prioritisation using Risk Mapping"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

\n

Scenario: My team wanted to write more automated checks, but we had too many features to cover and not enough time. We had to prioritize what to test… but how to do it objectively?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n

Sam Connelly<\/a> wrote an article about Visual Risk<\/a>. The exercise visually maps features in terms of frequency of use and impact of failure.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The exercise goes like this:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Draw a simple risk heat map (just the axis)<\/li>\n
  2. List your flows or features on post-its<\/li>\n
  3. Place your post-its into the risk map<\/li>\n
  4. Let the group discuss the previous placement (and iterate)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    When you finish the exercise you have a visual prioritisation of features, in terms of risk or importance. That gives you an idea on what to test.<\/p>\n

    I found his exercise very hands-on and insightful \u2013 exactly what I needed.<\/p>\n

    \ud83c\udfaf Goal<\/h3>\n

    The goal was to let the team prioritize which areas should be covered by automation next. We included product<\/em> because they knew how important each feature was. And we included developers<\/em> because they knew which code areas lacked confidence.<\/p>\n

    \ud83e\udd14 Concerns<\/h3>\n

    As you can see from Sam’s hand-drawn graph, you can place your post-its freely. That’s why the group discussion is so important: it allows the frequency and impact of each feature to be peer-reviewed, reducing the placement subjectiveness.<\/p>\n