If you’ve been in a leadership role with software quality and testing responsibilities, it’s likely that you’ve faced many tough decisions. Not the least in significance is weighing the building vs buying approach to selecting a test automation framework for your organization. Though I call it a ‘test automation’ framework, such a framework could be asked to serve many other purposes such as general test asset management, defect management, test data management, reporting, and more.
The ROI of building vs. buying a test automation framework depends on several factors – Cost, customization, control of the solution, technical skills and availability of the team, type and complexity of the applications under test, and the quality needs and goals of the organization.
To compare the ROI of building vs buying testing frameworks, you need to calculate the net gain and the net investment of each option. The net gain is the difference between the benefits and the costs of the solution, and the net investment is the total amount of money and resources spent on the solution. The ROI is the ratio of the net gain to the net investment, expressed as a percentage.
There are different ways to measure the benefits and costs of a test automation solution, such as the time saved, the quality improved, the defects reduced, the coverage increased, the productivity enhanced, the risk mitigated, etc. You can use different metrics and formulas to quantify these factors and compare them across different options.
For example, one way to estimate the ROI of a test automation framework is to use the following formula:
- Automation Benefits are the savings from automating the test cases, such as the time saved, the defects avoided, the quality improved, etc.
- Automation Costs are the expenses of implementing and maintaining the test automation framework, such as the development effort, the tools, the licenses, the resources, etc.
- Manual Testing Costs are the expenses of executing the test cases manually, such as the labor, the tools, the resources, etc.
Using this formula, you can calculate the ROI of building vs. buying a test automation framework for a specific project or product, and compare the results to see which option is more cost-effective and beneficial.
However, this formula is only a simplified example, and it may not capture all the aspects and nuances of test automation. Applying or estimating costs/benefits for some elements can be difficult and hard to measure. Take for instance resource reallocation costs. If you have your most talented people engaged on longer term, behind the scenes projects like framework development, they are not able to be engaged in the day to day activities of finding tests. It could also be true that focusing that talent on framework development would result in longer term quality and cost benefits. You may need to adjust or modify the formula according to your specific context and situation, and use other metrics and methods to supplement your analysis.
Building vs Buying: Pros and Cons
In Conclusion
Generally speaking, building a test automation framework from scratch can offer more control and customization flexibility, but it also requires more initial development, maintenance cost, as well as utilization of very high level technical experts. Buying a test automation framework can provide a ready-made and professionally supported solution, but it also can limit the flexibility and compatibility of the framework, and may incur license or subscription fees that increase over time.
Partnering with Trissential can be advantageous, as we bring expertise and experience in guiding organizations through their quality and test automation journey.
Talk to the expert
Frank Cress
Head of Quality Solutions
frank.cress@trissential.com
Learn more about Trissential’s Quality Solutions
