The Importance of Manual Testing in an Automation World

By Justin Brown – Client Director, Roq

The ever-changing landscape of digital transformation and the speed at which these changes are taking place means that testing – whether that be manual or automation – has to be approached with a fresh perspective and an open mind. This theory is agreed upon universally, however there’s not as much consensus about where manual testing sits in an agile, ever-changing, and rapidly developing environment.

Test Automation, a fantastic tool but not a silver bullet

The demand for automation appears to have surged in recent years.  It’s often sold as a ‘silver bullet’ within the process of software testing, and organisations are, quite understandably, seduced by promises of saving money and time. Manual testing is, by its nature, time-consuming, and for those who hold the purse strings, time is money.

Automation is without doubt a great regression testing tool to be used after manual testing has taken place. It’s quick, efficient, and reliable but it does take time to implement new scripts. Manual testing involves using software in real-time, picking up on any issues that may be created or introduced by the user – could the same be said for automation? In terms of building confidence, there’s no reason why automation alongside manual testing can’t be seen as a perfectly balanced approach, offering maximum assurance across all areas of development. Ultimately, a product that is under an automated testing suite doesn’t get the full assurance from its owners that it works until they have seen with their own eyes. Despite its obvious advantages such as speed and convenience, automation testing doesn’t quite cover this peace of mind, whereas manual testing does.

The world of quality needs a human touch

Some organisations, rightly or wrongly, think they can steer away from having formal manual testing roles, but this doesn’t mean manual testing is redundant. Bug hunting sessions within an organisation, alpha testing, beta testing, and exploratory testing are all manual testing and are still relevant parts of the test cycles.

Testing will always need ‘the human touch’ in one form or another during a testing phase to validate the software behaves as expected for the end user which is something that automation alone simply can’t achieve. When organisations herald automation as the silver bullet, they aren’t taking into account the need for it to be performed on a stable environment. Automation can only run specific test cases with blinkers on and can’t spot other issues that may be happening elsewhere on the page – something manual testing would pick up on. Humans can adapt to spontaneous changes in the code whereas an automation tool needs recoding to take into account the code changes.  This costs time and money. Automation can be a great white box testing tool to ensure the code behind the application is developed to a high standard, which subsequently helps during the manual testing stage.

Here at Roq, many of the discussions we have with clients in the early days of engagement surround the benefits and pitfalls of different types of Quality Engineering, the best approaches to take, and the experience we have across both manual and automation testing. Some companies are –in our opinion, incorrectly – led down the path of ‘automation equals a golden ticket to success’. What’s missing from this equation is the vital human aspect – the need for curious, exploratory testing that can only be carried out by a human being. Manual testing is so much more than just the deployment of scripts; it’s about driving out clear requirements where they haven’t been defined sufficiently. It should focus on identifying improvements to processes whether manual or systemic, present or future, temporary or permanent. It is about interaction and reaction, taking business feedback and assurance into consideration. Depending on this type of Quality Engineering, it can be proving concepts or benefits, and most importantly it’s about the user experience.

Automation is without doubt a great tool with multiple benefits which shouldn’t be ignored, but used in isolation it has its limitations. However, taking a two-pronged approach by utilising the very best of both manual and automation creates a very happy and successful marriage.

One of the issues the Quality sector is facing is how manual testing is being ‘sold’ to those in the early days of a testing career; our research reveals that fewer university students are being encouraged to explore manual testing as a viable path and courses appear to be dropping it from the curriculum in favour of automation and other less ‘hands-on’ techniques.

At Roq, we feel it’s vital to recruit people who not only embrace newer techniques and can work in relative isolation on automation projects, but it’s equally – if not more – important for them to have excellent communication skills and the ability to work as part of a team, collaborating and participating effectively at all stages of a manual testing process.

Does the trend toward automation sound the death knell for manual testing?

We don’t believe so, and will continue to recruit candidates with broad knowledge and practical experience across both manual and automation which is proven by our commitment to training the next generation of Quality Engineers.  We have successfully recruited 21 Academy Consultants and Graduates in the last year with plans to bring in a further ten by the end of 2023. We firmly believe that whilst the future of automation is bright, it’s only as good as the manual testing skills that accompany it.

You can find out more about our Academy on our website. If you want to discuss anything in this article or have a chat about how Roq can support your organisation, please do reach out to me on LinkedIn or email – justin.brown@roq.co.uk or the wider team ask@roq.co.uk