This is something which is not correct but is the actual scenario in testing teams. How I would use it to the advantage of my team - Identify repetitive tasks - Anything which team does more than once in a release becomes candidate for automation. Whether it's setting up environment ,data, defect analysis, identification of duplicates . Automate them - Engage testers to review automation scenarios, approve their quality & finally make them owners to maintain,execute and analyse them.Provide them coaching to be successful - Leverage SDET for efficiency and optimization scenarios or tasks like building utilities to validate messaging queues,production data analysis to identify missing test scenarios Think beyond execution automation

The choice between automated and manual testing depends on the project's specific needs and context. Automated testing is ideal for repetitive, high-volume, and regression tests because it can increase efficiency and consistency. Manual testing, on the other hand, is better for exploratory testing, usability assessments, and cases where human judgment is crucial. A balanced approach that leverages both methods often leads to project success. Use automation for routine tasks to save time and manual testing for areas requiring detailed investigation and feedback. Combining these approaches ensures thorough coverage and effective quality assurance.

Project Scope Evaluation: Use automated testing for repetitive tasks like regression tests, while manual testing is ideal for complex user scenarios, such as usability testing. Time and Resource Management: Automation can save time in the long run, but requires initial investment and setup, as seen in IBM's cloud services. Regularly assess testing effectiveness using metrics, e.g, Microsoft adjusts its hybrid approach based on project needs. Skill Utilization: Assign tasks based on tester expertise—automate routine tasks while leveraging manual testing for exploratory scenarios. Continuous Improvement: Implement feedback loops from test results to refine both automated and manual strategies, enhancing overall software quality.

Choosing between automated and manual testing requires understanding the strengths of each approach and determining which one is best suited to your project's goals, timelines, and resources. Both automated and manual testing play an important role in a successful quality assurance process, and often a hybrid approach leads to the best results.

Sigh - 2 very different things. They are not mutually exclusive. Manual testing (test case writing to ensure coverage, execution etc.) is necessary. Automation is done later and isn't required in any way. Automation DOES NOT replace manual testing.

No doubt it has to be Automation. Automated testing excels in efficiency, repeatability and handling large volumes of regression tests, making it ideal for ensuring consistent quality.

The choice between automated & manual testing isn't a matter of one being better than the other, but rather how they complement each other to achieve project success. Both approaches have their strengths Automated Testing Strengths: Efficiency Consistency Coverage Integration Best For: Repetitive tasks Large test suites Regression testing Load and performance testing Manual Testing: Strengths: Exploratory Testing Usability Testing Flexibility Best For: Exploratory and usability testing Testing new features where the requirements might evolve Scenarios where automated test scripts would be too costly or complex to maintain Combining Both Approaches Optimal Strategy Automate Routine Tasks Manual Testing for Complex Scenarios Iterate and Adapt

The simple answer is that both automated and manual testing have their own importance. Automated testing is best for repetitive, large-scale tasks, while manual testing is essential for more complex or user-focused scenarios. The key is to find the right balance based on the project’s scope and the available resources.

To ensure project success, a balanced approach combining both automated and manual testing is ideal. Automated testing excels at handling repetitive tasks, regression testing, and large data sets, ensuring quick execution and consistency. Meanwhile, manual testing is crucial for exploratory, usability, and ad-hoc testing where human intuition and adaptability are key. By leveraging automation for routine tasks and using manual testing for areas requiring critical thinking, the team can optimize efficiency while maintaining high-quality output. The balance ensures thorough coverage, faster feedback, and adaptability to project needs.