Why We Still Struggle With Manual Test Execution in 2025

Manual Execution Seems To Be 'Forgotten'

The SDLC evolves quickly, as does each stage of the cycle. The testing phase is nowadays evolving based on AI-powered test case generation, automation tools, and CI/CD. However, manual test execution is still unavoidable in most QA teams. The role of a manual QA engineer is still relevant. Manual testing is still indispensable. And at the same time, manual testing is one of the most error-prone and cognitively draining activities.

So... why is that?

• Why, in 2025, do we still copy-paste test case steps into Jira or spreadsheets?
• Why is test planning so painful?
• Why do test runs take hours longer than expected?  

In order to answer all these whys, it is important to revise the manual testing strategy. In this article, let's examine what is broken and what your QA team can do to make the manual testing process more efficient and reliable.

There are multiple handy test management tools on the market in the software testing industry. Their variety can meet the majority of the needs based on the work principles of a QA team, such as

• QA documentation maintenance
• Test planning
• Test execution
• Issue tracking
• Reporting.

But, even with the help of these, manual execution still suffers from:

1. Poorly written test cases that do not reflect current product behavior
2. Repetitive actions that waste time and energy
3. Ambiguous or outdated steps to reproduce that increase confusion while testing
4. Lack of real-time collaboration within the dev team
5. Not enough transparency and feedback loop between QA documentation, test execution, issues, and reports

What makes it worse is that this is rarely discussed. Most discussions around software testing today focus on automation or AI. Meanwhile, manual testing is still carrying the weight of real user scenarios, without enough strategy.

Test automation cannot cover the cases where you need human eyes, judgment, and flexibility to:

1. Assess UI/UX, and find visual bugs
2. Handle new or unstable features and find 'flaky' bugs
3. Test exploratory scenarios and edge cases
4. Validate complex user flows that align with business logic

But instead of treating manual testing as a fallback option, we should treat it as a skill — one that requires structure, clarity, and tooling.

How to Improve Manual Execution

In order to make manual test execution smarter, faster, and more sustainable:

Step #1. Write Tests for Humans, Not for Machines

Most test cases read like machine instructions. Instead, use clear, concise language, group steps meaningfully, and avoid over-specifying what the tester already knows.

Think of your test case like a checklist, not a script. Empower the tester to think, not just click.

Step #2. Reduce Cognitive Load

Software testers often have too many duties: product logic, test data, environment setup, Jira tickets, and release notes. Avoid switching between tools and tabs as context switching reduces productivity.

Use a centralized test management tool that links everything: test cases, test sets, test runs, bugs, and test reports.

Step #3. Use Checklists to Increase the Process Speed

For stable product areas or repeated tests, it is more convenient to create lightweight checklists instead of full-blown test cases. Such checklists reduce documentation overhead and keep testers focused on impact, not execution history.

Step #4. Mix Structured Testing With an Exploratory Session

Manual execution does not have to be rigid. Allocate time for exploratory testing after completing key test cases in order to spend time finding unexpected bugs.

During exploratory testing, document your findings and turn them into test cases for Regression Testing.

Step #5. Track Test Runs and Test Results

Instead of just marking tests as “pass/fail,” track actual run time, blockers, skipped steps, and add comments when needed.

All these details allow your team and you to build traceability, as it makes your execution data useful for retrospectives and release decisions. Using tools that let you assign runs, filter by priority, and export test reports with the stakeholders is highly helpful for this case.

To Sum Up

Manual test execution is not broken because it is MANUAL. It is broken because it is treated as second-class work: unstructured, unsupported, and under-discussed.

If we start treating manual execution as a strategic activity, we can make it more reliable and useful. Because software quality does not come from tools but comes from how we use them.