automated-testing
Why Companies That Use Automated Testing Outperform The Rest
mm
Humberto Farias
Posted on: February 13, 2018
Development
Tags: testing; automated testing
Tags: testing; automated testing

Choosing a software development agency involves evaluating their procedures and technology. There’s a constant flood of emerging software trends, though. It can be hard for executives to decide which to prioritize. One thing that should be an absolute deal-breaker is automated testing.

The benefits of testing automation are so clear that developers who use it outperform the rest in nearly every area. Here’s a look at what gives them that extra boost:

Schedule

Manual testing can be a long, arduous process.

An engineer acts as an end user and interacts with each feature and process, repeating the process a specific number of times to shake out any errors.

It’s hard to predict how much time the process will take.

Since tests are longer, the timeline can expand dramatically based on results.

Additionally, engineers are tied up during manual testing.

They must remain focused on a relatively low-difficulty, repetitive task instead of working on higher value components. Between these two factors, development is slower overall.

Automated testing software uses scripts that simulate specific actions, then compare the results with the expected functions.

Tests need to be set up but can then be run easily and concurrently with each other.

It places lower demands on developers, who can work on other projects while tests run.

Because of this, testing has a more predictable schedule. There’s less wasted time and faster overall development.

Quality

Manual tests are performed each time by developers. They’re highly susceptible to programmer bias; what one engineer thinks is important or acceptable differs from another’s priorities.

The impact of human error is significant. Developers make mistakes, forget steps, fail to structure tests right, or become bored with the tedious process and cut it short altogether.

If they find a fault, they can’t always replicate exactly what caused it.

Manual testing takes longer, so it’s done less frequently. Unreliable and less frequent tests translates into more faults making it through to the final product.

Once automated testing scripts (especially regression tests) are written they can be reused for similar purposes.

That means the specific scripts used have already proven their value on previous projects.

The tests perform the same way every time, too. They generally feature a playback option that shows everything that led to an error.

If something unexpected does happen developers the data they need to identify the issue.

Faster testing allows more tests to be run. It also provides the opportunity for wider feature coverage since developers can test different components concurrently. More and higher quality testing leads to better quality software.

Sometimes – particularly when usability and the user interface (UI) is being explored – automated testing isn’t the best option, but those situations are limited to evaluating human opinion and interaction with the software.

For load testing, regression testing, and performance evaluations automation is the superior approach.

Cost

Manual testing has a high labor requirement. Developers can’t run more than one test at a time, and they have to be present for the entire test.

Clients have to choose between accepting the higher labor cost or cutting corners on test coverage.

There’s also the issue of wasting high-value employees on tedious tasks.

Much of the work in manual testing has to be done by engineers who are experienced enough to recognize, log, and track results.

Skilled labor is one of the largest portion of development expenses, and with manual testing that portion expands.

The quality issue comes into play here, as well. Fewer faults are found, and those that are tend to be discovered late in the development cycle.

The cost of repairing these is prohibitive.

A bug found late in the development process is 6 times more expensive to correct than one found immediately, and costs multiply by up to 100 when bugs are discovered after release.

Automated testing scripts are simple to run once written.

Valuable developers are free to work on complex or intricate portions of the project, coming back later to check test results.

The efficiency of this arrangement lowers overall development costs by maximizing skilled labor usage.

As discussed earlier, bugs found earlier are cheaper to fix. Automated testing can be run throughout the development process, and bugs are identified quickly.

There’s less risk of major faults making it through to the release stage.

The Best Developers Use Automation

The major players in software development have already incorporated automated testing, and the adoption rate is rising.

Last year 23% more companies began automating a significant portion of their software testing.

It’s no surprise that software development project failure rates began to drop again around the same time.

Automation is generally faster, better, and less expensive to run than manual tests.

The market knows this- and so should any developer being considered for a major project.

Are you struggling with a buggy app after your last development project? Could manual testing be the reason? Concepta can evaluate your app and provide an action plan for improvement. Contact us for your free consultation today!

Request a Consultation

mm

Humberto Farias

Humberto Farias is the CEO and Co-founder at Concepta. He is a seasoned technology professional with over 18 years of experience in the area of web-based applications and software development and now leads a team of developers in the US and Brazil. With experience working on enterprise systems and applications, he has worked for Fortune 500 companies including Walt Disney World and GE. Humberto has a wife and three kids and can be found spending time with his family, riding his bike, and reading books when he isn’t buried with ideas for his fast-growing companies.