HP Business Process Testing Software Optimizing PDF Manual Testing

Global 2000 companies continue to rely on manual testing processes for up to 80 percent of go-live efforts according to analysts; and most shops still do not conduct any test automation at all. Yet, much of the innovation around functional testing tools and processes continues to focus on test automation. There seems to be an underlying assumption that manual testing is a throwback—a necessary but inefficient practice that will one day be supplanted as technologies and processes mature and become more sophisticated. I hold a very different view, and I’m far from alone. I believe manual functional testing makes sense in many cases—both from a practical perspective and from an ROI perspective. I believe this will continue to be the case for many years to come, and that technology vendors should focus on improving manual testing processes, not just test automation. HP has proven to my satisfaction that it is committed to delivering breakthroughs in efficiency for manual functional testing as well as automated testing—and to easing the transition from manual to automated testing when that transition makes sense.

This paper summarizes my experiences at Raymond James with what I consider to be a breakthrough product: HP Business Process Testing software. Using HP Business Process Testing software, our team of three QA engineers supports over 40 subject matter experts and more than 100 developers, and we have seen a 50 percent reduction in compatibility testing time. It has helped us optimize our testing and it has given us the flexibility to do manual or automated testing as we see fit. This paper provides an overview of the product and how we use it, along with practical advice for those who are considering HP Business Process Testing software for optimizing their own manual processes or moving toward test automation. Manual functional testing versus automated testing The goal of functional testing is simply to verify that an application works as it should from the end user’s perspective.

Manual functional testing calls upon business analysts and testers to capture user requirements, prepare test plans and document their interactions with the application in order to validate the software’s operations. Through test automation, functional test scripts that have already been validated can be quickly applied to every application that uses that particular component of software, so more tests can be done in less time. There are many myths about both manual and automated functional testing. Many people believe that test automation is too expensive relative to its value; therefore it should be used rarely if at all. Others (such as agile developers) insist that automation of 100 percent of all tests is the ultimate objective. There is no set formula; the relative merits of manual testing versus automated testing for your company will depend on many factors. The next sections examine a few of them. Drawbacks to manual testing While manual testing may be the best option for a high percentage of projects, it is not without its shortcomings.

For example: • Manual testing relies heavily on ad hoc practices, and there is often no formalization of processes and procedures within the QA organization or across departments and lines of business (LOBs)—so individual team members are constantly re-inventing the wheel. • Manual tests can simply take too long—testers must tediously document each step of a test case and manually execute each test, reproduce defects, and so on. • The dramatic increase in complexity of today’s computing environments is amplifying test coverage requirements, creating more pressure to move to automated testing. • Corporate globalization and geographically dispersed teams create a need for standardized testing processes, which manual testing does not readily facilitate. • When there is no automated process for testing, there is typically no automated way to keep documentation synchronized with the testing process; each element of the test plan is a separate entity and every change must be managed and maintained individually. • Manual tests are subject to higher risk of mistakes and oversights than automated tests. • Manual tests do not allow the tester to create a data- driven test; data must be hard-coded into the test script or the test script must reference an external data file. What’s needed is a manual testing solution that makes the whole process more efficient—from test design to test creation to test maintenance and documentation. That is exactly what HP is trying to accomplish with HP Business Process Testing software for manual testing. Why 80 percent of functional testing is still manual Manual testing is typically far simpler and less expensive than automated testing, and it requires a much lower skill level to execute.

Those are only the obvious reasons most functional testing is still done manually. In addition: • Many applications and business processes simply do not benefit from automation. These may include non- critical legacy applications and business processes; single-use software components; applications that address low-level tasks; applications that do not require multiple builds, patches and fixes; applications that are tightly coupled with a particular type of hardware or configuration; and applications that support a limited number of concurrent users. • The ROI of automation tools and processes often does not support their adoption. The move to automation must be carefully assessed from a skills perspective and a financial perspective. In many instances the QA team does not have experience/competence in automation. New tools and training can be expensive; new processes can be disruptive. Typically, automation takes three to four test cycles to break even with manual testing. So any testing tasks that require fewer test cycles might not be a good candidate for automation. You need to consider all these factors in determining the true ROI of automation.

Download HP Business Process Testing Software Optimizing PDF Manual Testing


Related E-Books:

    None Found

May 25, 2010 | Posted in Hewlett-Packard Manual, Software

Comments

Leave a Reply