How would you handle conflicting priorities from different stakeholders in test case prioritization?

Test Execution is an audit process assessing risk and stability of an application or infrastructure. Priorities are based on criticality to the business' reputation, revenue and client base. When you bring all prioritization back to these key factors, then balancing stakeholder needs becomes transparent and actions can be negotiated more equitably because the enterprise is always the central focus to deliver value.

1.We need to focus in which requirements are in high priority. 2.Which requirements are aligning with the Product Roadmap 3.Which requirement will add more value to the product

Esta situación se origina por una mala comunicación inicial, y es que todo no se puede prever. Una vez que aparece un conflicto de prioridades se debe determinar una prioridad del peso de cada stakeholder, es decir, a quien se tiene que rendir cuentas en primera instancia. Una reunión con los stakeholders necesarios junto con el equipo necesario es fundamental para evaluar el conflicto y coordinar una solución. La elaboración de un plan de acción frente al conflicto de manera transparente es esencial para alcanzar una solución. Este plan de acción ha de ser aprobado por todos los implicados con responsabilidad, durante todo su ciclo de implantación.

Begin by comprehending the requirements of each stakeholder in order to manage conflicting priorities in test case prioritization. Engage with them to identify concerns, such as a project manager's emphasis on timelines or a developer's emphasis on intricate code areas. In order to achieve balanced prioritization, it is necessary to acknowledge these perspectives, which necessitates strong communication skills and advocacy for a testing strategy that is consistent with the project's objectives.

By conducting a risk assessment, it is possible to resolve conflicting priorities by assessing the potential impact and likelihood of defects. Present a data-driven rationale for your decisions, choosing high-risk areas in the testing schedule. Quantifying risk establishes an objective basis for decision-making, allowing stakeholders to comprehend and endorse the scheduling, even if some less critical concerns are resolved at a later time.

When dealing with opposing stakeholder interests, it is essential to engage in trade-offs negotiation in order to rank test cases appropriately. Participate in a candid conversation to elucidate the repercussions of giving preference to one component over another. For example, giving priority to testing new features might result in a delay in retesting bugs that have been addressed. By engaging in negotiation, stakeholders may reach a consensus on a new priority list that accurately represents a collective comprehension of the project's optimal course of action.

Facilitate negotiation sessions where stakeholders discuss and agree on the trade-offs. Highlight the consequences of not testing certain features or areas. Encourage a collaborative approach where stakeholders understand the overall project goals and the necessity to compromise on lower-priority items to focus on critical ones.

Documentation: Keep detailed records of decisions made, rationales behind prioritization, and any changes. This documentation can be invaluable for future reference and accountability. Training: Provide training for stakeholders on the prioritization process and tools used. This helps in building a common understanding and smoother collaboration. Flexibility: Be prepared to adapt to unforeseen changes in the project scope, new requirements, or emergent issues that may shift priorities.