I’m currently exploring how “Wardley maps” can be applied in strategies for testing. Here is an example of how I used a map to understand and work with risks.
In my current projects the system under test is not software development, but rather a end-2-end transition of IT services. The technology is part reinstallation, part spin up of containers – in other words, some elements are more or less commoditized. Also some elements are more or less visible to the stakeholder. It seems like a good fit for a Wardley map….
How to use Wardley Mapping to understand how you deliver customer value
First I need to tailor the horizontal axis a bit. I have read up on the articles by Simon Wardley and Ben Mosior with regards to the framing of “evolution”. For a quick intro read Erik Schön describes the four stages, like this:
- Genesis: the unique, the very rare, the uncertain, the constantly changing and the newly discovered. Our focus is on exploration.
- Custom Built: representing the very uncommon and that which we are still learning about. It is individually made and tailored for a specific environment. It is bespoke. It frequently changes. It is an artisan skill.
- Product (+ rental): the increasingly common, the manufactured through a repeatable process, the more defined, the better understood. Change becomes slower here. Whilst there exists differentiation particularly in the early stages there is increasing stability and sameness.
- Commodity (+ utility): scale and volume operations of production, the highly standardized, the defined, the fixed, the undifferentiated, the fit for a specific known purpose and repetition, repetition and more repetition.
There is also a relevant article, where Evolution is the level of ambiguity – which is just one of the relationships Wardley Mapping have with the Cynefin Framework.
The key legend to the horizontal axis is the relative position from unknown/uncharted to embedded/industrialized – to you or the organization being mapped. It’s possible to tailor the labels specifically to the components being mapped – like the legends of altitude lines, buildings and roads on a map. Here’s one for the specific risk context above:
| Original | Concept | Hypothesis | Theory | Accepted |
| Risk legend | Uncharted | Known | Stable | Standard |
| Elaboration | We don’t know the risks yet | We see these risks. | Risks are stabile. | Risks are reduced to standard components |
Experimental tailored legend
First I map the system landscape: relative to the business vertically and relative to Risk stage horizontally. It gives me the map above. It’s probably only half-way right, but with this I can consider:
- How far can I move the elements to the right?
- What inertia blocks movement?
- Which ones can I move the furthest?
With the map (position and movement) I can consider what happens when risks change and evolves – how does evolution affect the test strategy?
If we automate Configuration, the risk is significantly reduced.
Reinstallation can only get us to a certain point, due to: