Manual Testing Meets AI: The Future Of Quality Assurance

Forbes

2 days ago

Ruslan Desyatnikov is Founder and CEO of QA Mentor, Inc., an independent software-testing company headquartered in New York.
getty
As AI technology and no-code automation tools continue to evolve, manual testing seems to be losing its edge. This perception may or may not align with reality, as multiple factors are impacting manual testing, including budget cuts driven by the tech sector slump.
But as QA professionals, we must acknowledge the realities outlined in the latest World Quality Report, which highlights the forces shaping the future of manual testing.
Here's a closer look at what's happening:
• Automation is outpacing traditional testing. Manual effort was identified by over half of the respondents as a key factor reduced by automation, resulting in lower operating costs, fewer defects and improvement in user experiences.
• Manual testing is on life support? Only 10% of respondents said that manual testing is still prevalent due to specific application architectures.
• GenAI is taking over. Manual effort can be minimized as GenAI in quality engineering enhances test data creation, test case generation, automation, defect analysis and regression efficiency, enabling teams to execute thorough regression cycles quickly.
• SDET is a hot commodity. Almost 30% of respondents highlighted increased demand for software development engineers in test (SDET) who possess coding skills in addition to traditional test experience.
• Hyper automation is the new standard. Manual testing is at risk of obsolescence as hyper automation transforms manufacturing by reducing routine tasks, speeding up production and maintaining high-quality standards.
The Manual Tester's Renaissance: How Human Expertise Is Evolving For AI
Analyzing this data, it seems like manual testing is losing ground. But if you look deeper, none of the five bullet points make a convincing case that the curtain is about to fall on manual testing. The third item is a cause for concern, but it contradicts what we're seeing at our company.
As the founder of QA Mentor, a global software testing and quality assurance services company, I can confirm that despite the rise of AI, manual testers remain in high demand. In fact, 89% of our client requests still require their expertise.
The Case For Human-Driven QA
Our numbers are actually reinforced by the World Quality Report. The publication revealed that only 19% of respondents believe developers can handle all forms of testing, rendering separate testing teams unnecessary. This underscores the irreplaceable value of human judgment in maintaining quality and tackling the complex, nuanced issues that automation just can't manage.
What the report correctly highlights is that the role of manual testers is evolving. Humans are crucial in validating AI-generated outputs. This is why the authors advocate for a hybrid approach that combines manual expertise with automation, and where SMEs review and refine AI-generated test cases. They also call for establishing a robust feedback loop for streamlining the process to strike the balance between efficiency, accuracy and quality control.
Back To The Dot-Com: How Budget Cuts Are Reviving QA's Struggles
Along with AI driving the change, some QA specialists argue that manual testing is facing the chopping block due to shift-left practices, which emphasize integrating QA from the outset.
As an industry insider, I believe the challenges facing manual QAs and the QA sector have less to do with either; the shift-left approach has been with us for years. The challenges are more closely linked to the ongoing downturn in the tech industry. In 2023, 1,193 tech companies executed layoffs, resulting in the loss of 264,220 jobs, a pattern that persisted into 2024. Last year, more than 500 tech firms collectively laid off about 150,000 employees.
While this may sound alarming, it's actually nothing we haven't seen. We're witnessing a modern-day version of what transpired 25 years ago. During the dot-com bubble, organizations trimmed costs by scaling back dedicated QA functions, while tech companies prioritized speed over quality assurance in their race for growth. As QA was overlooked, it left products vulnerable to failures, ultimately contributing to the collapse of many promising ventures.
Unfortunately, history appears to be repeating itself, as budget cuts often lead IT departments to target QA as the first area for layoffs.
QA Failures That Hurt Big Names
Boo.com is a classic cautionary tale from the dot-com bubble, illustrating how hype and rapid growth can't compensate for poor execution. Despite raising $135 million, the site was plagued by slow load times, browser incompatibility and backend failures.
Its flashy, graphics-heavy interface alienated dial-up users, while technical instability and fulfillment issues eroded trust. Boo.com's collapse illustrates how ignoring user experience and QA can derail even the most well-funded ventures.
Here are a few more stories of companies that highlight the importance of QA:
• Equifax: In 2017, Equifax, one of the major credit reporting agencies, experienced a data breach that exposed the sensitive information of 147 million individuals. The incident was linked to unpatched software vulnerabilities and shortcomings in security processes, ultimately resulting in regulatory penalties and reputational impact.
• GitLab: This cloud-based DevOps platform experienced an incident in which thousands of user projects were lost due to a system misconfiguration and insufficient backup procedures, drawing attention to gaps in quality assurance and disaster recovery planning.
• British Airways: In 2017 and 2019, system failures led to flight disruptions, and a data breach in 2018 resulted in significant financial penalties and operational impact.
• Southwest Airlines: During the 2022 holiday season, Southwest Airlines canceled over 16,000 flights due in part to outdated scheduling software, resulting in widespread travel disruptions and substantial financial losses.
• Rogers: In 2022, Rogers Communications experienced a nationwide outage affecting over 12 million customers after a configuration error during a system update. The disruption impacted mobile and internet services, including access to emergency services.
Conclusion
AI and automation are flipping testing on its head, but manual testers aren't out of the game yet. The future lies in a powerful combination of human instincts and AI speed. If companies cut QA for the sake of growth, they're flirting with disaster, and history's brutal lessons prove it. Only the right balance will ensure that quality survives.
Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?