Improving Manual Testing Quality Through Cross-Disciplinary Test Case Reviews – ██FR█████ █INTELL███████████

This content originally appeared on DEV Community and was authored by Oyinade Phillips

Manual testing isn’t just about following steps — it’s about thinking critically, spotting gaps, and collaborating for quality.

Introduction: Why Manual Testing Still Matters
In today’s automation-first tech world, manual testing is sometimes underestimated — yet it remains crucial for identifying user-experience flaws, business logic errors, and edge cases that automation may miss.

Through my role as a QA, I’ve refined a simple but powerful approach: once test cases are derived from user story acceptance criteria, they undergo a three-way review process — by a fellow QA, a developer, and a business stakeholder.

This cross-functional method significantly improves test coverage, alignment, and shared ownership of quality.

Step 1: Translating Acceptance Criteria into Test Cases
Before any review, it starts with precision:
I convert the acceptance criteria of each user story into detailed test cases, focusing on:

Positive flow validations
Negative scenarios
Edge cases
System dependencies or constraints
Pro tip: I often start with Gherkin-style or structured test steps to maintain clarity and uniformity across the team.

Step 2: QA Peer Review — A Fresh Perspective
Another QA in the team reviews the test cases. This helps:

Identify blind spots I may have missed
Suggest domain-specific test variations
Validate consistency in naming and logic
Share ownership of quality practices
Why it works: It creates a culture of knowledge-sharing and reinforces standards across the QA team.

Step 3: Developer Review — Technical Accuracy & Feasibility
Having a developer review the test cases adds deep technical insight:

Are we testing based on how the code actually works?
Are there API or backend validations the UI doesn’t expose?
Are our assumptions aligned with the system logic?
This collaboration also prevents redundant efforts and helps avoid misunderstandings between Dev and QA.

Step 4: Business/PO Review — Value Assurance
A final review is done by someone from the business side — either a Product Owner (PO) or Business Analyst (BA). Their focus is different:

Are we validating the feature in a way that aligns with business goals?
Are critical use cases captured?
Does anything feel missing from a user journey standpoint?
This bridges the gap between technical validation and business value.

Real-World Impact
After implementing this 3-angle test case review model, we saw:

Metric

Missed scenarios found during UAT Before ~8/month After ↓ 2/month

UAT rejection rate Before ~15% After ↓ 5%
First-time pass rate (QA sign-off) Before~75% After ↑ 92%
Developer–QA feedback cycles Before 3–5 rounds After↓ 1–2 rounds

These results were consistent across multiple sprints.

3-Step Review Flow
→ Show QA → Dev → PO in sequence with arrows
→ Tools used (e.g., JIRA/Xray, Zephyr, TestRail/TFS,Azure DevOps)

Test Case ID	Scenario Description	Expected Result	Reviewer
TC001	User logs in with valid credentials	Dashboard loads	QA, Dev
TC002	User enters incorrect password	Error message shown	QA
TC003	PO can create a report from UI	Report generated	PO

This Process Works in Any Industry

Whether you’re in fintech, health tech, e-commerce, education, or SaaS, the 3-way test case review model is domain-agnostic.

Why?

Because testing isn’t just about checking — it’s about understanding.

QA brings depth and coverage
Devs bring technical reality
Product/BA ensures business alignment
Together, they elevate the quality of manual testing beyond checklist-level assurance.

Final Thoughts
Test cases aren’t just for QA — they’re a shared team asset.

Involving your peers across QA, Development, and Business functions ensures broader coverage, fewer bugs, and a culture of collective ownership. It’s one of the simplest and most impactful things you can do to level up your testing strategy.

Manual testing may not involve code, but it demands engineering-level thinking.