Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Jurnal

A Comparative Analysis of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Manual and Automated Testing in Software Quality Assurance

Recursive Journal of Informatics · Vol. 4 No. 2 (2026) · hlm. 156–165

DOI
10.15294/rji.v4i2.64137
ISSN
2986-6588, 2963-5551
Terbit
2026-09-30
Penerbit
Universitas Negeri Semarang
Bahasa
eng

Abstrak

Purpose: This study aims to analyze the effectiveness, bottlenecks, and reliability of automated testing and manual testing, as well as to compare the two approaches in detecting bugs and supporting software product quality. Accelerating release cycles can be counterproductive if functional stability is ignored; thus, evaluating these two quality assurance methods is crucial to finding an optimal balance in software development. Methods/Study design/approach: The study employed a quantitative approach through a survey of 105 respondents, comprising QA Engineers, software developers, and academics, using a five-level Likert scale questionnaire. The collected data were rigorously analyzed using descriptive statistics, the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test, and the Friedman Test to objectively evaluate the performance, reliability, and operational bottlenecks of both testing methods. Result/Findings: The results demonstrate that automated testing is highly effective for regression testing and repetitive execution, while manual testing remains significantly effective for UI/UX evaluation and complex dynamic cases. Both methods face distinct challenges. Automated testing is bottlenecked by script maintenance efforts and flaky tests, whereas manual testing is hindered by lengthy execution times and human error. Automated testing was found to be significantly more accurate in detecting recurring functional bugs. Furthermore, an integrated combination of both automated and manual testing was proven to substantially reduce escaped defects. Novelty/Originality/Value: This research provides empirical evidence confirming that despite the strong push for automation in modern Agile and DevOps environments, neither method can completely replace the other. Both testing approaches are most effective when utilized complementarily according to their intrinsic characteristics. This synergy is essential to prevent bottlenecks in the software release cycle and ensure superior product quality.

Kata kunci

Jaringan kolaborasi para penulis

16 penulis · 35 tautan kepenulisan bersama · 22 lintas organisasi

Arahkan kursor atau ketuk sebuah nama untuk menyorot rekan penulisnya. Klik dua kali untuk membuka halaman penulis.

  • Indonesia University of Education
  • Yogyakarta State University
  • Universiti Sains Malaysia
  • Universitas Islam Negeri Ar-Raniry
  • Universitas Muhammadiyah Purworejo
  • Universitas Negeri Surabaya
  • Sebelas Maret University
  • Organisasi berbeda
  • Organisasi sama
  • Afiliasi tidak diketahui
  • Garis lebih tebal = lebih banyak artikel bersama · lingkaran lebih besar = lebih banyak artikel
Tampilkan sebagai tabel
Rekan penulisOrganisasiArtikel bersama
Putu SudiraYogyakarta State University2
Muhammad Isfa' LanaIndonesia University of Education1
Afika RiantiIndonesia University of Education1
Ahmad FauziUniversitas Islam Negeri Ar-Raniry1
Ilham Agung PambudiIndonesia University of Education1
Muhamad Akda Fathul BarriIndonesia University of Education1
Ayu Permata SariIndonesia University of Education1
Suyitno SuyitnoUniversitas Muhammadiyah Purworejo1
Warju WarjuUniversitas Negeri Surabaya1
Pardjono PardjonoYogyakarta State University1
Farid MutohhariYogyakarta State University1
Fajar Danur IsnantyoSebelas Maret University1
Taufik RidwanIndonesia University of Education1

Afiliasi berasal dari OpenAlex; metadata OAI-PMH jurnal tidak memuatnya. Penulis tanpa ID OpenAlex dicocokkan berdasarkan nama, sehingga dua orang bisa tergabung atau satu orang bisa terpisah.

Sumber metadata: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) https://journal.unnes.ac.id/journals/rji/oai, pertama di-harvest 6 Nov 2026, terakhir terlihat 8 Nov 2026.
Metadata asli (oai_dc) 
<oai_dc:dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/  http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
	<dc:title xml:lang="en">A Comparative Analysis of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Manual and Automated Testing in Software Quality Assurance</dc:title>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Agustin, Amara Seviany</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Majid, Nuur Wachid Abdul</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Rahman, Md Baharuddin Bin Abdul </dc:creator>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">Automated Testing</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">Manual Testing</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">Software Quality Assurance</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">Bottleneck</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">Escaped Defects</dc:subject>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en">Purpose: This study aims to analyze the effectiveness, bottlenecks, and reliability of automated testing and manual testing, as well as to compare the two approaches in detecting bugs and supporting software product quality. Accelerating release cycles can be counterproductive if functional stability is ignored; thus, evaluating these two quality assurance methods is crucial to finding an optimal balance in software development.
Methods/Study design/approach: The study employed a quantitative approach through a survey of 105 respondents, comprising QA Engineers, software developers, and academics, using a five-level Likert scale questionnaire. The collected data were rigorously analyzed using descriptive statistics, the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test, and the Friedman Test to objectively evaluate the performance, reliability, and operational bottlenecks of both testing methods. 
Result/Findings: The results demonstrate that automated testing is highly effective for regression testing and repetitive execution, while manual testing remains significantly effective for UI/UX evaluation and complex dynamic cases. Both methods face distinct challenges. Automated testing is bottlenecked by script maintenance efforts and flaky tests, whereas manual testing is hindered by lengthy execution times and human error. Automated testing was found to be significantly more accurate in detecting recurring functional bugs. Furthermore, an integrated combination of both automated and manual testing was proven to substantially reduce escaped defects.
Novelty/Originality/Value: This research provides empirical evidence confirming that despite the strong push for automation in modern Agile and DevOps environments, neither method can completely replace the other. Both testing approaches are most effective when utilized complementarily according to their intrinsic characteristics. This synergy is essential to prevent bottlenecks in the software release cycle and ensure superior product quality.</dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en">Universitas Negeri Semarang</dc:publisher>
	<dc:date>2026-09-30</dc:date>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</dc:type>
	<dc:type xml:lang="en">Peer-reviewed Article</dc:type>
	<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
	<dc:identifier>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/journals/rji/article/view/64137</dc:identifier>
	<dc:identifier>10.15294/rji.v4i2.64137</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en">Recursive Journal of Informatics; Vol. 4 No. 2 (2026): September 2026; 156-165</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2986-6588</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2963-5551</dc:source>
	<dc:source>10.15294/j2r8b957</dc:source>
	<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/journals/rji/article/view/64137/11627</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en">Copyright (c) 2026 Recursive Journal of Informatics</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>