Automation Isn’t the Goal, Reliability is
For new QAs and QA managers, the pressure to show progress can feel relentless—leadership often demands metrics that trend “forward,” and automation is hailed as the golden ticket. But after years in tech, I’ve learned that automation isn’t always the answer; reliability is. Focusing on dependable processes and outcomes, rather than chasing automation for its own sake, ensures that QA teams deliver true value, keeping both the product and the team in good standing.
The Automation Trap
It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking automation equals progress—it doesn’t. New QAs might feel compelled to automate everything, and leadership may push for higher PR counts or broader automation coverage. But if your tests are flaky due to messy data or undocumented systems, what’s the point? A test that fails unpredictably is worse than no test at all. I’ve seen this with legacy systems: when a tech team maps out a roadmap, the biggest wins often come from digging into undocumented features or securing reliable seed data for edge cases, not just piling on automated tests that fail to deliver meaningful insights.
Prioritizing Reliability Over Volume
Sometimes, manual testing is the better option—like when dealing with complex, one-off scenarios that scripts can’t yet handle, or legacy features lacking documentation. When leadership pressures you to boost automation metrics, it’s okay to push back and propose alternatives that prioritize reliability. For example, documenting those unknown legacy quirks or building a solid data foundation can set the stage for meaningful testing, ensuring the team delivers value beyond a shiny automation dashboard full of failing tests. Reliability trumps volume every time, because dependable processes lead to dependable products.
Building for Dependability
My own experience reflects this focus on reliability. I’ve set up Jira workflows, repositories, and QA processes from scratch, and the goal was never to automate every step but to make the team’s work dependable. This motivation drove me to create QA-Shadow-Report, a tool that provides consistent, digestible insights with failing test statuses and manual document references—the low-hanging fruit often overlooked. By focusing on reliability, we ensure that every test, whether manual or automated, contributes to a stable foundation, not just a flashy metric.
Strategies for Reliable QA
- Embrace Manual Testing: Use it for complex or undocumented scenarios where automation isn’t yet effective.
- Stabilize the Foundation: Document legacy systems and secure reliable data to ensure tests are meaningful.
- Push Back Thoughtfully: Propose reliability-focused alternatives when automation pressure feels misaligned.
- Leverage Insightful Tools: Use tools like QA-Shadow-Report to provide consistent, actionable data for better decision-making.
QA managers and new QAs facing pressure to churn out metrics—I feel your pain, and it’s okay to fight back in the name of quality. Shift the focus from automation for its own sake to building a reliable foundation through manual testing, solid data, and clear documentation. Reliability is what keeps the product—and your team—in good standing, ensuring lasting quality over fleeting metrics. After all, in QA, it’s not about how many tests you automate; it’s about how dependable your results are.