# Have you tried using mission-based charters?

**URL:** <https://club.ministryoftesting.com/t/have-you-tried-using-mission-based-charters/83761>\
**Category:** Discussions\
**Tags:** exploratory-testing, testing-charters, mot-stec\
**Created:** [24 March 2025 16:51 UTC](https://club.ministryoftesting.com/t/have-you-tried-using-mission-based-charters/83761 "2025-03-24T16:51:34Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![fullsnacktester](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/club.ministryoftesting.com/fullsnacktester/32/13479_2.png) [@fullsnacktester](https://club.ministryoftesting.com/u/fullsnacktester)\
**Post date:** [24 March 2025 16:51 UTC](https://club.ministryoftesting.com/t/have-you-tried-using-mission-based-charters/83761/1 "2025-03-24T16:51:34Z")

</div>

Exploratory testing is all about discovering useful information, and one way to guide that discovery is by using a mission-based charter. They help you anchor your session, give you a focus, and make it easier to reflect on what you’ve learned.

If you’ve not tried one before, give this challenge a go!

## Your challenge (if you choose to accept it):

Run an exploratory testing session using a mission-based charter.  
Capture your observations, ask questions, and structure your notes in a way that helps you reflect.

Steps:

1. **Explore any application or website** — maybe something familiar or something from the [75+ Testing Practice Websites](https://www.ministryoftesting.com/articles/75-testing-practice-websites-to-master-software-qa-in-2024) list on the MoT site.

2. **Set up your note-taking structure** — Use your own structure or try this three-part format.

3. **Run your exploratory testing session**

4. **Review and summarise your notes**

5. **Share what you uncovered! Post your structured notes here!**

Exploratory testing is even better when it’s collaborative! That’s why I run Software Testing Live! — so testers can learn by watching each other test in real time. See [the events page](https://www.ministryoftesting.com/events/list) for the next upcoming session and [the talks archive](https://www.ministryoftesting.com/talks/list) to see and learn from past recordings.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![steve.green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f4b2a3/32.png) [@steve.green](https://club.ministryoftesting.com/u/steve.green)\
**Post date:** [25 March 2025 13:53 UTC](https://club.ministryoftesting.com/t/have-you-tried-using-mission-based-charters/83761/2 "2025-03-25T13:53:51Z")

</div>

We have specialised in exploratory testing since 2001 and developed our own methodology and approach to planning and tracking test coverage. 15 years ago, we had a very large project for which we decided a more formal approach would be beneficial so we used James Bach’s Session Based Testing (SBT) approach (more for our client’s benefit than our own, and it undoubtedly gave us an edge during the bidding process against our more conventional competitors).

**Session management**  
James uses (or used) a Perl application and text files for managing the sessions, but we didn’t like the look of it so we created an equivalent system using Excel files for the Master Charter List and the session files. We created a desktop application that queried all the Excel files to create the required management reports.

**How it went**  
The transition from freestyle exploratory testing to timeboxed charters with a specific scope was certainly challenging, and it required discipline to stick to the time allowances and to save out-of-scope test ideas for the debriefing sessions.

We didn’t like having to create the charters at the beginning, which is when you know the least about the system. Of course, that’s the exact same problem you have when writing test scripts at the start of a project (not that I would ever do that). Part of the SBT approach is that you include some unassigned sessions (perhaps 10% of the total number) that you can use for things you discover during the testing, but we soon used them all up.

I don’t think any of us enjoyed using SBT or thought it improved the quality of our testing, but the structured approach and periodic progress reports certainly gave our client confidence in our work.

**Management overhead**  
James reckons that the session-based approach adds an overhead of about 30%, and that aligns with our experience. That, and the lack of benefits to the testers, is why we never used this approach again. That’s not to say that some teams wouldn’t benefit from it, but we were already very good at managing large exploratory testing projects