I’m a little bit frustrated. Since Twitter died and I decided to start engaging on LinkedIn more, I keep seeing posts that perpetuate this idea of “manual” vs automated testing; us vs them.
There is no versus. Your civil war is manufactured. There’s room for everyone and we all want the same thing: good quality.
I’m frustrated by posts which pit people against one another; which disparage human testing; which claim automated checks bring less or no value; which distract us from actually improving quality.
Testers are specialists. Automation is a tool. Specialists use tools. Not every tool is right for every job. A specialist knows which tools to use and when. What’s the problem here?
I specialise in exploratory testing. I’ve written some automation before and I’m actively working to improve those skills, not because I want to replace my exploration, but because I want to contribute more to making more room for it.
Think of making things; physical things. Some things get mass produced and others are hand-crafted. One is not better than the other or universally more suitable, they’re just different. Say I want to sell tables and be the destination for all your table needs. My customers have individual needs. I could mass manufacture tables in a factory, but that can be expensive to set up and a bit overkill. I could make them completely from scratch, but that can be slow and boring. I know. How about I have the most popular models mass manufactured and hand craft the more unique, innovative pieces. I don’t need to go to the extreme of making the nails and collecting the wood myself; I can buy those in and still create something that’s never been seen before.
I can automate the checks that need to be performed in the exact same way the most often. I can explore to discover new risks. I can use tools to generate test data or mock conditions. There is no war.
The real issue I see is people and companies not understanding the relationship between human testing and automation. It doesn’t need to be a hostile one, because it’s not an “either or” situation. It’s a supportive one.
If I only mass produce the same few tables, I’m missing a big part of the market. If I only hand craft, it gets expensive and I don’t have time to build the unique pieces or innovate. I don’t have to pick just one or the other. I can use both to my advantage to get the best results.
I can see that it’s frustrating when other people and companies claim that human testing can be replaced by automation, or even AI. We, as humans, naturally get defensive and want to justify our existence. But I don’t think arguing against one another is the answer; education is.
Stop fighting, start uniting, and work together towards your shared goal.
What do you think about this “conflict” – is the potential for its existence already enough for the threats to be real? Share your perspective in the comments.
Like what you’ve read and want a test strategy which makes the most of both human and automated testing? You’re in luck! I’m looking for work in Quality Engineering and Scrum Master roles, and am available immediately. Get in touch to discuss how I can support you and help bring out the best in your team. You can also find me on LinkedIn.