4 Test Automation Misconceptions Explained
Test automation is a software testing technique that uses an application to execute a select number of tests using scripts or automation tools as part of the QA efforts. It’s become a cornerstone of fast-paced software development life cycles and provides quick feedback to teams after new features have been developed. It’s an especially beneficial strategy for tests that don’t change frequently and are executed repeatedly on each new release.
Despite the obvious upside, many companies are still on the fence about adopting this approach. Their trepidation frequently stems from horror stories of failed attempts at automation or significant technology investments that didn’t provide a positive ROI. While a small percentage of those stories are true, let’s address a few common misconceptions to help you determine what’s right for you.
Misconception 1: Test Automation Gives You More Free Time
Test automation is less about creating free time and more about being efficient and productive with the time spent testing. Automating repetitive tests lets you reallocate that time to running exploratory tests that verify your application is still in good order as changes are being delivered. Managing test script maintenance is one of the most crucial aspects of test automation, so one potential downside is falling into a “set-it-and-forget-it” mentality. As the development of your product changes, so must your automation code.
Triaging and maintaining automated tests is where many organizations trip up. Not building that time into their initial test automation strategy results in the automation project dying. This is where an outsourced software testing company like QualityLogic can help. We’re utilized regularly to review test failures, debug and update test automation code, as well as being highly adept at helping companies develop their test automation strategy and writing scripts. Letting us ensure the success of your company’s automation project allows you to focus on developing revenue-generating code for new features and critical updates.
Misconception 2: The Cost of Automated Testing is Too High
The initial sticker shock of test automation may seem to eclipse its potential ROI, but the reality is that the cost of failing to perform adequate testing—both manual and automated—is far more than the investment. A National Institute of Standards and Technology (NSIT) study found that software defects cost the economy nearly $60 billion annually. If you think you’re exempt, consider that just one post-deployment issue could incapacitate an entire function of your system, costing you both money and customers.
Test automation is about much more than speed to market. It’s about catching bugs pre-deployment when they’re less expensive to fix. Along with the cost benefits, there are intangible factors that more than justify the expense. Automating repetitive tests allows a team to more deeply reflect on the needs and wants of the user. The World Quality report found that ensuring customer satisfaction is the primary expected outcome for software testing teams.
Satisfied customers lead to repeat purchases, brand loyalty, and positive word of mouth –the foundation of any successful business. A recent analysis of customer satisfaction concluded:
- Totally satisfied customers contribute 2.6 times as much revenue to a company as somewhat satisfied customers
- Totally satisfied customers contribute 17 times as much revenue as somewhat dissatisfied customers
- Totally dissatisfied customers decrease revenue at a rate of 1.8 times what a totally satisfied customer contributes to a business
Finding the right blend of automated and manual testing ensures your software meets the expectations of your customers and allows your team to focus on product improvement via new features and upgrades.
Misconception 3: Automated Testing is Better Than Manual Testing
The truth is, automated and manual testing go hand-in-hand, complementing each other in ways that allow for a comprehensive and effective test strategy. Comparing them in the context of one being better than the other is a mistake that can actually create problems you’d otherwise avoid. The key is knowing when and how to implement each.
Situations Best Suited to Test Automation
Continuous integration environments require a testing approach that can keep pace. Test automation makes it possible to repeat an entire test suite as often as needed. Not only that, but automated scripts can also simulate multiple concurrent users to evaluate the system’s performance.
Data-driven functions are another prime area for automation. There may be cases where the same tasks need to be validated with different inputs. Doing so manually is an inefficient, time-consuming use of QA resources, whereas automating these types of tasks ensures that all possible input scenarios are accurately covered in depth.
Lastly, static and repetitive tasks are ideal for automated scripts. Why waste time having someone manually verify things that remain relatively unchanged from one cycle to the next? Letting automated test scripts handle these tasks frees your team to work on more important items.
Instances When Manual Testing Makes More Sense
There are scenarios where human observation is more appropriate than an automated script. For example, when the goal is testing usability, a manual approach is best since humans learn more about user perspective during their evaluation. They can then use this knowledge to make recommendations on how to improve the user experience. Also, they’re good at catching details the system missed. It’s not uncommon for someone to find things that were never addressed in the automated scripts.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, there is no substitute for the analytical observation skills required to evaluate complex systems. It may not be possible to evaluate certain features using automation, making a manual approach necessary.
Ultimately, the real question is how to capitalize on both to get the most effective results.
Misconception 4: Automated Testing Hinders Human Interaction
Test automation doesn’t eliminate the need for human interaction. If anything, writing comprehensive and effective scripts requires more teamwork since it can’t happen in a bubble. The most effective scripts result from a collaboration between the business analysts, developers, and QA team. Idea sharing is what ultimately results in a comprehensive suite of scripts that reflect the expanse of system functionality.
It’s important to remember that automated testing isn’t some magical set-it-and-forget-it tool that runs perfectly every single time. Scripts need revising as requirements change. Additional cases need to be developed as new features arise. All of this requires a feedback loop between team members to keep everything in sync.
How QualityLogic Can Help You with Both Manual and Automated Testing
We realize not all projects are created equal, so our team helps you identify the aspects of your system that lend well to automation and which are more suited for manual testing. Then, we work with you to devise a strategy and determine a framework that best suits your needs. With this approach, you won’t waste time and money on a ton of bulky features you’ll never use.
For automatable testing, our TestNitro automation service might be the answer. It includes dedicated support to help things stay on track and delivers rapid, predictable, and cost-effective test coverage that cuts down QA overhead while freeing your team to move faster and ship with confidence.
Interesting in finding out more about having your test automation handled without the nightmares?
