To Automate or else to Automate

The reason behind still keeping manual testing? Has the help of an automation failing been so pricey? Or are you currently presently remaining from it since you will not wish to have the former? Exactly why for remaining from are numerous. I furthermore agree they are legitimate ones. A couple of from the major ones include:


Traditional a.k.a script based test automation are complex. All due to the need to 'code'! Be it RFT, QTP, Selenium or any other test automation tool a tester must study a scripting language specific for the automation tool, apply development practices to make a script from the by hands tested test situation. Let us say you may still automate without having your testing teams code scripts?

Test automation is pricey

From purchasing automation tools to right sources who be familiar with native language in the tool making it work - traditional test automation requires numerous quantity of investment. Tool license to user ratio is 1:1 meaning while you add another test automation expert for the team, you have to buy yet another license. Let us say you are able to share test automation tool licenses inside your team?

Skill intensive

Yes, script based test automation requires programmers. Frequently more than expected, good programmers are available in an expense. This enhances the cost to automate. Make sure to are the costs of hiring and retaining these sources. Scripting also isolates the whole testing exercise within the other team people ( manual testers and material experts). This is not intentional but an undesirable aftereffect of test automation. Let us say all levels of experience, domain and technical understanding collaborate in test situation creation?


Traditional test automation means scripting. To produce scripts, test, which makes them work requires time and effort. And time means more cost, literally. Let us say you are able to shorten now but nonetheless ensure automation?

Even though the aforementioned reasons are true, perhaps you have thought what you are losing out on? Perhaps you have considered:

Incomplete test coverage

Pressure of your energy-to-market pushes your testing team to not regress 100%.


Even if you opt to by hands regress for 100% test coverage, imagine the amount of time are you able to save in the event you automate regression? Imagine how rapidly you'll be able to to enter the market? Consider the very first mover advantage?

Human errors

Even though to err is human, testing world can't utilize this just like any excuses to have an insect which get observed with the client. Manual regression may become mundane be responsible for unknown bugs.


This not only encapsulates resource cost, tool cost, infrastructure cost but cost the of elevated time to market, the unknown bugs due to inadequate 100 % regression or just sheer monotony. Many of these are costs and options you can't condone.

Manual exams are essential. Test automation cannot replace manual testing. If exams are method to build high quality software, then test automation is a method to mean. You'd agree, it is probably the effective methods for build optimum software testing process. Nevertheless the dilemma continues...

One one hands lies to cost of developing, maintaining and operating test automation. And however lies from the cost of elevated time to market as well as the unknown bugs due to inadequate 100 % manual regression. What else could you select?