Before I could throw more light on the title of this post, let me come to the role of Automation Testing in the Software Development Process. Though, I am not personally against Test Automation, still I tend to doubt the effectiveness of test automation in the Software Testing Process! Though, I have worked in many Projects involving Test Automation, there were only few cases where Automation could yield the desired result. And in most cases, test automation was a nightmare rather than a moral boost for the test manager!
Whenever a new automation tool is lunched, the advocates of the new tools claim that the applications give in-house testing professionals more control, including the ability to perform tests that are repeatable with ease. However, critics of automated tools consider it as a poor substitute for a thorough and nuanced manual test that a skilled practitioner performs. Most experts agree, however, that an automated test in the hands of an untrained novice could do more harm than good.
"A fool with a tool is still a fool," said Bill Harrod, a
security management consultant at CA, formerly Computer Associates.
The main purpose of adopting test automation is to gain ability in performing test executions faster and more accurately than a manual tester. But in practice, it becomes very hard to achieve. I personally believe that only test automation is not good enough for the over all health of a software. However, it can be used as a supplement along with skilled manual testing. But test automation in itself is not at all sufficient as far as a testing approach is concerned. If at all, we are using any automation testing tool, then also the effectiveness of the tool largely depends upon the skill of the person using the tool. So at last, what matters is the skill of the tester and not the tool. A tool might be with many great features to test an application. But as long as the person using it is not well trained, it is going to do more evil than good. More over, to train a novice takes much time and effort. If the same time could be allotted to skilled manual testing (exploratory testing!), then I think that could yield better results.
Your thoughts please…