Why is the manual testing method no longer effective?

Ayan Nadeem

Ayan Nadeem


Manual Testing approach no longer viable

Every month, we spend a significant amount of man-hours on manual testing, but war rooms and defect triaging calls are still unavoidable. Every now and then, new digital applications emerge, necessitating testing of anything from browser compatibility to UI reaction time. Traditional manual testing methods can be used to perform all these different kinds of testing, but they take more time, and with short deadlines, we need speedier launch times.

Few Challenges with Traditional Manual Testing Approach

1. Developing and Maintaining Test Scripts is Tedious

Agile approaches are frequently used in modern software development to ensure that clients receive their software applications more quickly. Rapid iterations and continuous delivery are prioritised in this strategy, which results in more frequent releases of updates and modifications.

In this situation, testing scripts must be consistently updated to guarantee that the application is working properly with the most recent updates. Failure to do so may result in problems in the testing lifecycle, in environments ranging from QA through UAT. If scripts are not updated, they become dated and are unable to test the programme in its current condition. Incorrect test findings, omitted problems, and unsuccessful releases might arise from this.

2. Time to Deliver

Each test is run manually during manual testing, therefore each time the software is changed, the tests must be manually run again. With each incremental modification, this procedure lengthens the testing cycle, which can be time-consuming. Contrarily, automated testing enables quicker test execution because the tests are run by a tool, which shortens the testing period.

Go To Market (GTM) time may be significantly impacted by the longer manual testing period needed. The GTM is the interval between the product development stage and the product launch. Longer testing cycles can cause the product's introduction to be delayed, which can be a major drawback in a fast-moving, cutthroat market.

3. Lack of Transparency & Communication

Multiple teams work simultaneously on many streams in complicated software development projects. This can apply to the project's development teams, testing teams, and other teams. However, in such a setting it can be difficult to maintain and monitor the overall testing status and performance.

There may be a communication gap between various teams and stakeholders due to the lack of visibility and openness regarding testing status and performance. It can be a time-consuming procedure for test leads to spend a substantial amount of time each week or month presenting crucial metrics to stakeholders.

4. Inefficient Complex System Testing

When an enterprise architecture connects multiple systems, manual testing becomes difficult to maintain the synchronization between the test scripts based on changes. There is a higher chance of missing steps in testing, and it becomes difficult to find a skilled tester who is proficient in all the tech landscapes.

Frequently Asked Questions

is manual testing dead?

Manual testing is not extinct, though. Even though employing automated testing tools has numerous advantages, manual testing may be an important part of software testing.

It can be particularly helpful when performing exploratory testing, usability testing, and evaluating certain user interface elements that could be challenging to automate.

However, relying only on manual testing can be time-consuming, error-prone, and result in longer testing cycles as applications' complexity and frequency of changes continue to increase. In order to obtain higher testing coverage and more effective testing procedures, many organisations are utilising a mix of human and automated testing methodologies.

Does manual testing have a future?

Manual testing is still relevant nowadays. Even though automated testing has benefits, manual testing can still offer important insights that cannot be obtained through automated testing alone. Manual testing can assist in finding problems that automated testing might miss, such as usability issues, user interface flaws, or general user experience concerns.

Additionally, manual testing may be more successful in some circumstances, such as exploratory testing, where the tester might creatively spot problems that automated scripts would miss. To succeed in the future, manual testers will need to learn new skills including working closely with developers and being able to read code, API testing, and test automation. They will also need to adapt to new technologies and processes.

Is manual testing easy?

Depending on a number of variables, including the complexity of the application being tested, the testing methodology being utilised, the tester's abilities and experience, and the tools available for testing, manual testing may be simple or challenging.

On the one hand, manual testing for simple systems with well-defined testing criteria and an organised testing process can be rather simple and easy. On the other hand, when working with sophisticated systems that demand extensive testing, different settings, and enormous datasets, manual testing can become exceedingly difficult and time-consuming.

Is manual testing in demand?

Well, let's try this:

Manual testing is like an old friend - reliable, dependable, and always there when you need them. But just like that friend who still sends you snail mail, it's becoming a little outdated in today's fast-paced world. It's like trying to use a typewriter in a world of smartphones and voice assistants - it gets the job done, but it's not the most efficient way of doing things. So while manual testing may still have a place in the testing world, it's slowly becoming the rotary phone of the industry.