Yesterday, I had the privilege of listening to Dorothy Graham (Dot) as she shared her incredible 50-year journey in automation at AutomationStar’s virtual event. It was such a profound, insightful and captivating talk. As always, Dot’s insights were profound and challenging to the conventional narratives that often surround our field. She spoke passionately about a prevailing belief: the idea that only a “good” tester is one who can code.
Dot argued that this perspective is not only misguided but demoralizing. It sidelines testers who excel at the core of their craft—analyzing, questioning, and uncovering value-adding insights—yet may not possess strong coding skills. When we define “good testing” narrowly as just automation, we risk devaluing the diverse skills required to truly assess quality. As Dot wisely put it, a good tester is someone who can think critically and provide meaningful insights about the product. If they can automate, fantastic, but the primary skill of a tester is to test well.
This brings me to a related thought from a business perspective. Many companies see automation as a way to reduce costs, assuming that the more we automate, the fewer testers we need. On paper, it’s an appealing strategy, but in practice, it’s often short-sighted. Yes, automation can drive efficiencies and cover repetitive tasks, but it cannot replace the insight, intuition, and creativity of a skilled tester. When we overly focus on automation to save costs, we risk missing out on real, nuanced quality assessments that only a human tester can deliver.
In the long run, over-reliance on automation without investing in exploratory and critical testing weakens the product’s quality. It’s a reminder that automation is a tool—not the essence—of testing. As we progress, let’s recognize and respect the full spectrum of testing skills, knowing that a balanced approach to quality will always serve us better in the end.
#softwaretesting #softwareengineering #automation #qualitymatters #brijeshsays
