Automated processes save resources and make day-to-day business easier. Nevertheless, there are still areas in software development where we should rely on human judgment. The IT service provider Avision shows when automation does not have to be the method of choice.
Whether in software development, production or service, solutions from the field of robotic process automation (RPA) and other technologies have experienced a real boom and have become an integral part of most companies’ day-to-day business. Their use ranges from self-running tests for programmers and autonomous production lines in industry to almost human chatbots for customer communication – to name just a few examples. In the world of software development, however, those who do not fully automate all aspects of their work are well advised. Avision uses three key examples to show when human programmers achieve the better results.
The individual design
When it comes to an intuitive user interface that takes the customer’s requirements and needs into account, automated tools are currently reaching their limits. And that’s a good thing, because the human creativity and understanding of employees can make the difference in a competitive market compared to providers who rely on automatically generated solutions. Companies are also more flexible when it comes to unpredictable events such as last-minute change requests if they create the design of user interfaces manually, for example.
The complex use case
Rapidly growing and complicated software can make various aspects of automation more difficult, such as code generation or automated testing. If the complexity of the software increases, the effort required to fully automate it also increases. It makes more sense to place complex functions or algorithms in the hands of human programmers and thus retain more control over the project.
The unnecessary test
Automated code review has many advantages, in particular the rapid detection of errors, the improvement of quality and compliance with standards. However, automated testing is not synonymous with perfect results and cost-effectiveness must also be considered: Anyone who invests 20 days in automation in order to save a one-off five days of manual testing at the end has missed the real target. In these cases, it is still true that people can sometimes be more effective than technology.
“Automation may break through current boundaries in the near future – what is impossible today may become reality tomorrow,” summarizes Nadine Riederer, CEO at Avision. “Nevertheless, programmers don’t have to automate today or tomorrow just because they can. There will always be cases in which manual, human work offers convincing advantages. The right mix makes all the difference.”
