Test Automation and Automated Tests

7. März 2018
Kategorien
Newsletter abonnieren

Test Automation and Automated Tests

Because of my work as a project recovery consultant, I talk a lot about testing, continuous integration, continuous delivery, continuous deployment, and DevOps. During these conversations, the term automation gets thrown around in abundance.

In general, we all understand what automation means – the use of some technology to complete a task that was done manually before. But when we talk about automation in terms of testing, there are some nuances that we have to make.

Two types of automation

In the world of testing in general, and continuous delivery in particular, there are two types of automation:

1) Automated Tests
2) Test Automation

While it might just seem like two different ways to say the same thing, these terms actually have very different meanings.

Automated tests are tests that can be run automated, often developed in a programming language. In this case, we talk about the individual test cases, either unit-tests, integration/service, performance tests, end-2-end tests or acceptance tests.

Test automation is a broader concept and includes automated tests. From my perspective, it should be about the full automation of test cycles from check-in up-to deployment. Also called continuous testing.

Some linguistic analysis might also help clarify:

Automated Tests – in this case, «Tests» is a noun; the test is a thing. «Automated Tests» are particular types of tests; ones whose execution has been automated via some kind of code so that a person does not have to manually execute the test. You can have 1, 2, 3…. hundreds of automated tests.

Test Automation – this can be a noun as in the subject of «Automation» with «Test» indicating the type of automation. But, it is also referring to an activity; the activity of automating a given test or set of tests. As said previously; «Test Automation» is a broader concept than «Automated Tests».

Both automated testing and test automation are important to continuous delivery, but it’s really the latter that makes continuous delivery of a high quality even possible.

Essential for continuous delivery

In a traditional environment, testing gets completed at the end of a development cycle. But as more and more companies move toward a DevOps and continuous delivery model in which software is constantly in development and must always be deployment-ready, leaving testing until the end no longer works. That’s where continuous testing comes in – to ensure quality at every stage of development.

While ensuring quality at all times is very important, it’s not all that counts. The speed at which all of the integration and testing occurs is very important as well. That’s because if something in the pipeline stalls or breaks down, it holds up everything else and slows down the release of new developments, which defeats the purpose of continuous delivery.

This «how» and «why» make organization, consistency and speed imperative to support a continuous delivery model, and that’s where test automation can help.

How automated test and test automation help

Managing all of the testing needs in a continuous delivery environment is a massive undertaking – it requires a tremendous communication effort to keep track of which environments have deployed new code, when each piece needs testing and how those requirements integrate back into the moving process of continuously delivering software. A simple continuous delivery pipeline could look like this:

1) Continuous integration server picks-up changes in the source code
2) Starts running the unit-tests
3) Deploys (automated) to an integration environment
4) Runs automated integration tests
5) Deploys (automated) to an acceptance environment
6) Runs automated acceptance tests
7) Deploys (automated or manual) to production

This is a combination of making automated tests by developers or testing engineers and DevOps people automating deployment. In doing so, test automation goes a long way toward helping ensure that teams maintain a high standard of quality at all points along the pipeline.

Tags

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #11 – Risk Mitigation vs. Innovation

7. Mai 2026

Professional services firms are designed to minimize risk. Their business model depends on trust, reputation, and consistency. Clients rely on them for assurance, judgment, and reliability, which means failure is not just a delivery issue, but a firm-level risk. A single incident can have disproportionate consequences, whether through litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or reputational damage. That

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #10 – Client Intimacy vs. Platform Standardization

28. April 2026

Professional services firms win through relationships. The closer they are to the client, the more value they create. Understanding the client’s context, adapting to their needs, shaping solutions around specific situations rather than applying generic ones. That is where trust is built, where differentiation happens, and where premium pricing becomes possible. Standardization moves in the

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #8 – Short-Term Revenue vs. Long-Term Capability

23. April 2026

Professional services firms are built around revenue. Revenue is visible, measurable, and immediate. It drives partner compensation, signals performance, and anchors decision-making across the firm. Every client won, every project sold, every hour billed translates directly into current-year outcomes. Capability building works differently. It requires investment upfront, often without immediate return, and pays off over

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #7 – Partner Autonomy vs. Firm-Level Strategy

18. April 2026

One of the defining features of professional services firms is partner autonomy. Partners are expected to build and run their own business. They originate clients, grow revenue, manage teams, and are rewarded based on the performance of what they directly control. This creates strong ownership, high accountability, and a culture where individual success is tightly

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #6 – Service Lines vs. Firm

16. April 2026

One of the most persistent illusions in professional services is the idea of “one firm.” From the outside, large firms present themselves as unified organizations. One brand, one client proposition, one set of capabilities delivered across audit, tax, advisory, and deals. The expectation is clear: if the firm is integrated in the market, it should

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #5 – Global Standardization vs. Local Economics

12. April 2026

One of the least discussed challenges in large transformation programs is the illusion of standardization. From the outside, global professional services firms look highly uniform. One brand, one set of services, one methodology, delivered across countries in a way that suggests consistency and control. Audit, tax, consulting, deals all appear to operate within the same

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #4 – Accountability vs. Alignment

1. April 2026

In large transformation programs, accountability is rarely missing. It is distributed. It sits with executive sponsors, steering committees, transformation offices, service line leaders, and partner groups, each with a defined role and a legitimate claim to involvement. On paper, this creates alignment. In practice, it often removes ownership, because when accountability is spread across too

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #3 – Long-Term Investment vs. Short-Term Management

27. März 2026

One of the most underestimated constraints in professional services transformation is not technology, capability, or even funding. It is time. Real transformation takes longer than most firms are structurally able to tolerate. Core systems such as ERP platforms, data architectures, AI capabilities, or global workflow solutions are not incremental improvements. They are foundational changes. They

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #2 – Internal vs. Client Execution

26. März 2026

One of the most persistent, and least openly discussed, tensions in professional services firms lies in how they execute their own transformations. It is a tension that does not reveal itself in strategy decks or partner presentations, but in the day-to-day reality of large internal programs that quietly struggle to deliver. At first glance, the

Weiterlesen

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #1 – Technology Alliances vs. Internal Fit

20. März 2026

This article is part of a series exploring the tensions at the core of the Professional Services Transformation Paradox. The paradox itself is straightforward, yet deeply consequential. Firms that excel at transforming their clients often struggle to transform themselves. Not because they lack capability, but because their own structures, incentives, and operating models create resistance

Weiterlesen
Next