Hubbry Logo
Exploratory testingExploratory testingMain
Open search
Exploratory testing
Community hub
Exploratory testing
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Exploratory testing
Exploratory testing
Exploratory testing
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Exploratory testing is an approach to software testing that is concisely described as simultaneous learning, test design and test execution. Cem Kaner, who coined the term in 1984,[1] defines exploratory testing as "a style of software testing that emphasizes the personal freedom and responsibility of the individual tester to continually optimize the quality of his/her work by treating test-related learning, test design, test execution, and test result interpretation as mutually supportive activities that run in parallel throughout the project."[2]

While the software is being tested, the tester learns things that together with experience and creativity generates new good tests to run. Exploratory testing is often thought of as a black box testing technique. Instead, those who have studied it consider it a test approach that can be applied to any test technique, at any stage in the development process. The key is not the test technique nor the item being tested or reviewed; the key is the cognitive engagement of the tester, and the tester's responsibility for managing his or her time.[3]

History

[edit]

Exploratory testing has always been performed by skilled testers. In the early 1990s, ad hoc was too often synonymous with sloppy and careless work. As a result, a group of test methodologists (now calling themselves the Context-Driven School) began using the term "exploratory" seeking to emphasize the dominant thought process involved in unscripted testing, and to begin to develop the practice into a teachable discipline. This new terminology was first published by Cem Kaner in his book Testing Computer Software [4] and expanded upon in Lessons Learned in Software Testing.[5] Exploratory testing can be as disciplined as any other intellectual activity.

Description

[edit]

Exploratory testing seeks to find out how the software actually works, and to ask questions about how it will handle difficult and easy cases. The quality of the testing is dependent on the tester's skill of inventing test cases and finding defects. The more the tester knows about the product and different test methods, the better the testing will be.

To further explain, comparison can be made of freestyle exploratory testing to its antithesis scripted testing. In the latter activity test cases are designed in advance. This includes both the individual steps and the expected results. These tests are later performed by a tester who compares the actual result with the expected. When performing exploratory testing, expectations are open. Some results may be predicted and expected; others may not. The tester configures, operates, observes, and evaluates the product and its behaviour, critically investigating the result, and reporting information that seems likely to be a bug (which threatens the value of the product to some person) or an issue (which threatens the quality of the testing effort).

In reality, testing almost always is a combination of exploratory and scripted testing, but with a tendency towards either one, depending on context.

According to Kaner and James Marcus Bach, exploratory testing is more a mindset or "...a way of thinking about testing" than a methodology.[6] They also say that it crosses a continuum from slightly exploratory (slightly ambiguous or vaguely scripted testing) to highly exploratory (freestyle exploratory testing).[7]

The documentation of exploratory testing ranges from documenting all tests performed to just documenting the bugs. During pair testing, two persons create test cases together; one performs them, and the other documents. Session-based testing is a method specifically designed to make exploratory testing auditable and measurable on a wider scale.

Exploratory testers often use tools, including screen capture or video tools as a record of the exploratory session, or tools to quickly help generate situations of interest, e.g. James Bach's Perlclip.

Benefits and drawbacks

[edit]

The main advantage of exploratory testing is that less preparation is needed, important bugs are found quickly, and at execution time, the approach tends to be more intellectually stimulating than execution of scripted tests.

Another major benefit is that testers can use deductive reasoning based on the results of previous results to guide their future testing on the fly. They do not have to complete a current series of scripted tests before focusing in on or moving on to exploring a more target rich environment. This also accelerates bug detection when used intelligently.

Another benefit is that, after initial testing, most bugs are discovered by some sort of exploratory testing. This can be demonstrated logically by stating, "Programs that pass certain tests tend to continue to pass the same tests and are more likely to fail other tests or scenarios that are yet to be explored."

Disadvantages are that tests invented and performed on the fly can't be reviewed in advance (and by that prevent errors in code and test cases), and that it can be difficult to show exactly which tests have been run.

Freestyle exploratory test ideas, when revisited, are unlikely to be performed in exactly the same manner, which can be an advantage if it is important to find new errors; or a disadvantage if it is more important to repeat specific details of the earlier tests. This can be controlled with specific instruction to the tester, or by preparing automated tests where feasible, appropriate, and necessary, and ideally as close to the unit level as possible.

Scientific studies

[edit]

Replicated experiment has shown that while scripted and exploratory testing result in similar defect detection effectiveness (the total number of defects found) exploratory results in higher efficiency (the number of defects per time unit) as no effort is spent on pre-designing the test cases.[8] Observational study on exploratory testers proposed that the use of knowledge about the domain, the system under test, and customers is an important factor explaining the effectiveness of exploratory testing.[9] A case-study of three companies found that ability to provide rapid feedback was a benefit of Exploratory Testing while managing test coverage was pointed as a short-coming.[10] A survey found that Exploratory Testing is also used in critical domains and that Exploratory Testing approach places high demands on the person performing the testing.[11]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Exploratory testing

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Exploratory testing is a approach in which testers dynamically design and execute tests based on their knowledge of the product, ongoing exploration of the test item, and results from previous tests. It emphasizes simultaneous learning, test design, and execution, allowing testers to adapt to new discoveries without relying on pre-scripted procedures. Unlike traditional scripted testing, where test cases are fully documented in advance, exploratory testing treats testing as an active investigation that uncovers defects through creativity and real-time decision-making. The term was coined by Cem Kaner in the 1980s, drawing inspiration from John Tukey's concept of , and was further popularized by James Bach in the 1990s through his development of the Rapid methodology. Bach observed that unscripted testing often revealed more bugs than rigid scripts, leading to the creation of the first dedicated exploratory testing course in 1996. Key characteristics include the use of test charters—focused mission statements guiding sessions—and techniques such as , risk-based , and heuristics for coverage, enabling testers to probe for issues, edge cases, and unexpected behaviors. Exploratory testing is particularly valuable in agile and rapid development environments, where it provides quick feedback and complements automated testing by leveraging human intuition to identify complex defects that scripts might miss. Practical applications and empirical studies have shown it to be significantly more productive in certain contexts, such as finding critical bugs faster than scripted methods. It is often managed through session-based test management, which structures exploratory efforts into time-boxed sessions with debriefs to ensure accountability and visibility. As defined in standards like ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119, it remains a core technique in modern .

Fundamentals

Definition and Core Concepts

Exploratory testing emerges as a key approach within the broader field of , which encompasses activities designed to evaluate software products for defects, assess their quality, and ensure they meet specified requirements as part of efforts. In , testing aims to provide confidence in the software's reliability, functionality, and user satisfaction by systematically uncovering issues that could impact performance or . At its core, exploratory testing is an approach to characterized by the simultaneous learning, test design, and execution, where testers actively control the process to investigate the software's behavior and identify defects. This method emphasizes the tester's personal freedom and responsibility, allowing them to adapt their strategies in real time based on observations and insights gained during the session. Unlike scripted testing, where predefined test cases dictate the sequence of actions, exploratory testing integrates discovery and verification fluidly to uncover unexpected issues. Key concepts in exploratory testing include test , which serve as time-boxed missions outlining the session's focus areas, objectives, and potential risks to explore, thereby providing lightweight structure without rigid constraints. sessions follow each charter to review results, discuss findings, and capture learnings, ensuring that the exploratory efforts yield documented value for the team. Central to its effectiveness is the role of the tester's and adaptability, leveraging and heuristics to make informed decisions and pivot as new information emerges during testing. Exploratory testing is distinct from ad-hoc testing, which is frequently viewed as unplanned and haphazard; in contrast, exploratory testing is a disciplined, skill-based practice that maintains cognitive structure through charters and debriefs while documenting insights to support ongoing improvement. This structured flexibility highlights the tester's expertise in driving meaningful exploration rather than random probing.

Key Principles

Exploratory testing is fundamentally guided by the principle of context-driven testing, which emphasizes that testing decisions should be informed by the specific circumstances of the project, including risks, stakeholder needs, and the tester's expertise, rather than adhering rigidly to predefined scripts. This approach recognizes that the effectiveness of testing practices varies according to the unique context, such as the product's maturity, , and available resources. As articulated in the context-driven school of software testing, the value of any practice depends on its context, and there are no universal "best practices" that apply in isolation. Similarly, good requires judgment and skill exercised cooperatively across the project to address evolving challenges. A core aspect of exploratory testing is its heuristic-based approach, where testers employ rules of thumb or mental shortcuts to direct their exploration and prioritize areas likely to yield valuable insights. Heuristics, such as focusing on recent changes in the software or investigating edge cases where inputs deviate from expected norms, serve as flexible guides rather than prescriptive rules, enabling testers to adapt quickly to emerging patterns. For instance, the Heuristic Test Strategy Model provides guidewords across dimensions like project elements (e.g., recent changes) and quality criteria (e.g., edges) to stimulate diverse test ideas without constraining . This method draws on cognitive devices like checklists and mnemonics to enhance test coverage efficiently in uncertain environments. Testers in exploratory testing exercise significant freedom in designing and executing tests in real time, but this autonomy is coupled with responsibility for ensuring adequate coverage and transparently reporting discoveries. This balance allows individuals to manage their time as executives of their own efforts, aligning actions with session objectives while remaining accountable to the project's goals and stakeholders. Such responsibility is often operationalized through lightweight structures like test charters, which outline focus areas without dictating steps. Learning stands as a central activity in exploratory testing, involving continuous adaptation and refinement of tests based on real-time observations of the software's behavior. This integrates simultaneous learning, test design, and execution, fostering an iterative cycle where insights from one interaction inform the next, thereby deepening the tester's understanding of the product and potential defects. Through this learning loop, testers enhance their and , transforming exploratory sessions into dynamic investigations that evolve with the findings.

Historical Development

Origins and Early Concepts

The roots of exploratory testing trace back to the early days of in the 1950s and 1970s, when testing practices were largely ad-hoc and intuitive, integrated with efforts to identify and fix errors in nascent computer programs. During this -oriented era, which extended until around 1956, relied on informal methods without distinct separation from coding, often performed by developers themselves in response to immediate operational failures. By the late 1950s through the 1970s, testing evolved into a demonstration-oriented phase, where the primary goal was to prove that programs functioned as intended, still emphasizing confirmation over discovery but marking the first organized testing teams, such as the one formed by around 1957–1958. A pivotal shift occurred around 1979, transitioning to a destruction-oriented approach that encouraged testers to actively seek out and expose hidden flaws by attempting to "break" the software, laying groundwork for more investigative testing styles. This era, spanning 1979 to 1982, redefined testing as a deliberate of fault detection rather than mere validation, influenced by works like Glenford J. ' 1979 book The Art of Software Testing, which advocated executing programs specifically to uncover errors. In this context, exploratory elements emerged as testers intuitively probed systems to reveal unanticipated issues, contrasting with prior confirmatory methods and fostering a of adaptive investigation. The term "exploratory testing" was formally coined in 1983 by Cem Kaner, a expert, drawing inspiration from John Tukey's concept of as well as real-world observations of skilled testers to articulate the simultaneous learning, test design, and execution practices. Kaner introduced the concept during early workshops and in his initial writings, describing a flexible style that emphasized tester autonomy and real-time adaptation over predefined scripts. This naming captured the essence of investigative testing as a disciplined yet creative process, building directly on the destruction-oriented foundations of the late . These early ideas gained traction in Silicon Valley's dynamic, fast-paced development environments of the , where rapid innovation demanded agile testing approaches unencumbered by bureaucracy. This contrasted with the more rigid, specification-driven testing prevalent in military-influenced projects from the post-World War II era, which prioritized conformance to strict requirements over exploratory discovery. Kaner's formulation thus formalized practices already informally used by top testers in these innovative hubs, setting the stage for broader adoption.

Evolution and Key Contributors

The formalization of exploratory testing gained momentum in the late 1980s and 1990s through the work of Cem Kaner, who coined the term in 1983 and elaborated on its principles in his 1988 book Testing Computer Software. In this seminal text, co-authored with Jack Falk and Hung Quoc Nguyen, Kaner advocated for tester autonomy, allowing professionals to dynamically investigate software behaviors rather than adhering strictly to predefined scripts, thereby adapting to emerging risks in real-time. This approach marked a shift from traditional scripted methods, emphasizing learning and improvisation as core to effective testing. Kaner further advanced the field by co-founding the Association for Software Testing in 2004, an organization dedicated to promoting context-driven practices and professional development in software testing. In the 2000s, exploratory testing evolved through the development of structured yet flexible methodologies, notably James Bach's Rapid Software Testing (RST) approach, introduced around 2000 as part of his experiences leading testing teams since the late . RST integrates time-boxed charters—focused mission statements for testing sessions—with heuristics and observational skills to enable efficient exploration under resource constraints, fostering rapid feedback in dynamic development environments. Bach, a principal consultant at Satisfice Inc., positioned RST within the Context-Driven School of Testing, co-founded with Cem Kaner and Bret Pettichord in 1999, which prioritizes adapting testing to project-specific contexts over universal best practices. From the onward, exploratory testing expanded through influential publications, conferences, and broader adoption in modern development paradigms. Elisabeth Hendrickson's 2012 book Explore It!: Reduce and Increase with Exploratory Testing provided practical guidance on designing on-the-fly experiments and charters, making the practice accessible for agile teams seeking to balance structure with adaptability. Conferences such as , Europe's premier event since 1993, played a key role in dissemination, featuring sessions on exploratory techniques that highlighted real-world applications and innovations. This period also saw exploratory testing integrated into agile methodologies, as manifested in frameworks like Scrum, where it supports iterative discovery and risk mitigation. Maaret Pyhäjärvi emerged as a leading modern advocate, authoring Contemporary Exploratory Testing in 2024 and promoting "strong-style" collaborative exploration through her writings, presentations, and organization of events like the European Testing Conference, emphasizing empirical learning and tester expertise in contemporary contexts.

Practices and Techniques

Conducting Exploratory Testing

Exploratory testing sessions are typically structured as time-boxed activities to maintain focus and efficiency, lasting between 60 and 120 minutes each, guided by a specific that outlines the mission, scope, and objectives. The process begins with setup, where the tester reviews relevant requirements, product context, and any available documentation to inform the exploration. During the core exploration phase, testers apply heuristics—such as consistency with user expectations or historical behavior—to dynamically design and execute tests while learning about the software. occurs concurrently, capturing defects, risks, and observations to ensure without interrupting the flow. Several techniques enhance the effectiveness of these sessions. Thread-based testing involves following specific user journeys or workflows, such as simulating end-to-end interactions to uncover integration issues. Tour-based approaches guide exploration through metaphorical "tours," for instance, a tour that probes intricate code paths or feature interactions to reveal hidden behaviors. , where two testers collaborate in real-time, leverages diverse perspectives to deepen insights and accelerate problem detection. Documentation in exploratory testing emphasizes rapid, lightweight capture to support without rigid scripting. Testers record observations using , screenshots, or dedicated session sheets that track activities, findings, and time allocations. Following the session, debriefs with stakeholders synthesize these records, reviewing defects, risks, and coverage to inform next steps. A risk-based focus directs session charters toward high-risk areas, such as newly developed features or critical integrations, to maximize impact on product quality. This prioritization adapts dynamically as risks emerge during exploration, ensuring resources target potential failure points.

Tools and Supporting Practices

Exploratory testing relies on lightweight tools to structure sessions without imposing rigid scripts, with session-based test management (SBTM) serving as a foundational approach to track progress and ensure accountability. SBTM emphasizes time-boxed testing sessions guided by —brief mission statements outlining objectives, such as exploring user workflows or edge cases—followed by to review findings and metrics like bugs discovered or areas covered. Tools like Rapid Reporter, an open-source application designed specifically for SBTM, enable testers to log notes, timestamps, and observations in real-time during sessions, facilitating quick reporting and charter adherence. Similarly, simple templates in can be adapted for charter tracking, allowing teams to document session goals, actual coverage, and pass/fail ratios without specialized software. Supporting software enhances the exploratory process by capturing evidence and organizing insights. Bug tracking systems such as Jira integrate seamlessly, permitting testers to log defects directly from exploratory sessions with attachments like screenshots or videos, while maintaining to charters for . Screen recording tools like , a free and versatile option, allow testers to document interactions in video format, replaying them to analyze unexpected behaviors or share with stakeholders during debriefs. For visualizing explorations, mind-mapping software such as helps create dynamic diagrams of test ideas, branching scenarios, and risk areas, promoting creative navigation through the application's features. Key practices bolster the effectiveness of these tools by fostering skill development and . Charters not only individual sessions but also build tester expertise through iterative refinement, encouraging deeper product understanding over time. Team rotations, where members alternate roles in sessions to bring diverse viewpoints, enhance coverage by challenging assumptions and uncovering blind spots that solo testing might miss. Metrics derived from coverage charters, such as the number of explored scenarios or untested paths identified, provide quantifiable insights into session outcomes without quantifying every action. Best practices emphasize integration and responsibility to maximize exploratory testing's value. Hybrid approaches combine exploratory efforts with automation, where automated checks handle repetitive validations, freeing testers to focus on novel investigations and using tools like Jira to orchestrate both. AI-driven tools further support this by enabling dynamic exploration and maintenance of tests. For example, Reflect and Mabl facilitate building and maintaining end-to-end tests with AI exploration capabilities, allowing testers to generate and adapt tests based on application behavior. Keploy enables auto-generation of tests from network traffic, aiding in the discovery of integration issues during exploratory sessions. Ethical exploration requires explicit permissions for potentially disruptive actions, such as stress testing that could impact production-like environments, ensuring no unintended harm to systems or data.

Comparisons and Integrations

Versus Scripted Testing

Scripted testing, also known as test case-based testing, relies on predefined test cases that outline specific steps, inputs, and expected outcomes to ensure reproducibility and systematic coverage of requirements. This approach allows teams to verify that the software behaves as anticipated under controlled conditions, facilitating easy delegation to less experienced testers and supporting through auditable documentation. In contrast, exploratory testing emphasizes simultaneous test design, execution, and learning, enabling testers to adapt their approach in real-time based on observations and emerging insights. While scripted testing follows a rigid, predefined path that may overlook novel defects or interactions not anticipated during planning, exploratory testing fosters creativity and adaptability, allowing testers to uncover unexpected issues through freestyle exploration or lightly structured charters. The fundamental distinction lies in the tester's : scripted methods prioritize foresight and procedure, potentially limiting deviation, whereas exploratory methods empower ongoing and risk-based pivots. Scripted testing is particularly suited for , where stability and repeatability are paramount, and for environments requiring strict adherence to standards, such as compliance-driven industries. Exploratory testing, however, excels in scenarios involving new features, complex user interactions, or evolving requirements, where the goal is to discover design flaws or usability issues that predefined scripts might miss. Many testing efforts incorporate hybrid models that blend elements of both approaches, such as using scripted cases as a foundation while allowing exploratory charters for deeper investigation. This combination leverages the structure of scripts for coverage alongside the flexibility of for .

Role in Agile and Other Methodologies

Exploratory testing integrates seamlessly into Agile methodologies by aligning with the iterative nature of sprints, where it enables testers to provide rapid feedback on evolving software features and adapt to shifting requirements during development cycles. In Agile teams, it is often employed through short, focused sessions that investigate uncertainties or risks in user stories—allowing for real-time learning and defect discovery without rigid scripts. This approach supports the Agile principle of continuous improvement by complementing automated tests in hybrid environments, where scripted testing handles regression while exploratory efforts uncover unanticipated issues. In practices, exploratory testing enhances and (CI/CD) pipelines by facilitating ad-hoc sessions for validating deployments and exploring system behaviors in production-like environments. It addresses gaps in automated testing by focusing on post-deployment validation, where testers can probe for emergent issues arising from frequent releases, thereby promoting faster feedback loops and higher reliability in dynamic infrastructures. Within other methodologies, exploratory testing can be adopted in traditional approaches to identify overlooked defects, often integrated into testing phases to enhance sequential processes. Integrating exploratory testing into these methodologies presents challenges, particularly in balancing it with automation-heavy environments where scripted tests dominate, potentially leading to underutilization of exploratory skills. Scaling it also requires structured charters and collaboration to maintain consistency and share insights, avoiding silos in feedback collection.

Advantages and Limitations

Benefits

Exploratory testing excels at uncovering hidden defects that scripted approaches often miss, such as flaws, complex interactions, and edge cases arising from unexpected user behaviors. In controlled experiments, exploratory testing has demonstrated significantly higher defect detection rates; for instance, one study found that it identified 292 defects compared to only 64 by test case-based testing, with exploratory methods detecting more severe and critical issues across various difficulty levels. This advantage stems from the tester's ability to adapt in real-time, exploring unscripted paths that reveal issues like system interactions not anticipated in predefined test cases. The approach enhances tester engagement by empowering skilled professionals to leverage their , , and , fostering a more fulfilling testing process. Unlike rigid scripted testing, exploratory methods encourage and during sessions, which boosts problem-solving skills and among testers. This increased involvement also builds deeper system understanding, as testers iteratively refine their exploration based on immediate feedback, leading to richer insights into software behavior. Exploratory testing offers time efficiency, particularly in dynamic projects, by eliminating extensive overhead and combining test , execution, and into a simultaneous process. Case studies in embedded systems development show it can save substantial preparation time, such as reducing two months of scripting effort while still detecting critical defects overlooked by hundreds of automated tests. This streamlined workflow accelerates feedback loops, making it faster to set up and iterate in environments with tight schedules. Its adaptability makes exploratory testing ideal for projects with ambiguous or evolving requirements, where traditional scripting struggles to keep pace. Testers can pivot based on emerging discoveries, suiting agile and contexts by integrating seamlessly with iterative development without rigid preconditions. This flexibility ensures comprehensive coverage of uncertain areas, such as novel features or incomplete specifications, enhancing overall .

Challenges and Drawbacks

Exploratory testing encounters significant issues, as the simultaneous design and execution of tests without predefined scripts makes it difficult to repeat exact sessions for defect verification by developers or other stakeholders. This unstructured approach often results in incomplete documentation of the precise steps, conditions, or inputs that led to a , complicating and regression efforts. To address this, practitioners can employ tools during sessions to capture tester actions, system states, and observations, thereby facilitating partial reconstruction of test paths. The method's effectiveness is highly dependent on the tester's skills, experience, and , which can lead to inconsistent outcomes when novices perform it. Inexperienced testers may struggle to apply for test design or failure recognition, potentially overlooking subtle issues that skilled practitioners would detect. Mitigation strategies include targeted programs, , and paired testing sessions to build competency and standardize exploratory approaches across teams. Coverage concerns arise due to the risk of missing systematic or predefined areas of the software without guiding structures like test charters. The free-form exploration may result in uneven attention to features, leaving gaps in validation that scripted methods more reliably address. Using time-boxed charters to outline focus areas and debriefs to review session outcomes helps ensure more balanced coverage while preserving exploratory flexibility. Scalability poses challenges in large teams or complex projects, where coordinating multiple exploratory sessions without structured support can lead to duplicated efforts, tracking difficulties, and biases in individual exploration paths. Personal heuristics or preconceptions may skew focus, reducing overall efficiency in distributed environments. Implementing session-based , with defined durations and reporting templates, supports coordination and bias reduction in scaled settings.

Evidence and Applications

Empirical Studies

Empirical research on exploratory testing (ET) has primarily focused on controlled experiments and case studies to evaluate its defect detection capabilities, , and influencing factors compared to traditional scripted approaches. These studies, often conducted in academic and industrial settings, provide evidence of ET's viability in , particularly in dynamic environments. A notable controlled experiment by Afzal et al. in 2014 compared ET with test case-based testing (TCT) using industrial participants on the open-source jEdit. The results indicated that ET was more effective than TCT in fault detection, identifying significantly more defects overall, but required more use of time, finding more defects in the same 90-minute sessions. This efficiency gain was attributed to ET's flexible, nature, which allowed testers to adapt quickly without overhead, though coverage tracking remained a challenge. Building on such comparisons, Asplund's 2019 study examined contextual factors affecting ET's fault detection in a safety-critical medical technology firm. Through a multi-team analysis, the research found that variables like tester experience, , and had a stronger influence on ET outcomes than in scripted methods, where predefined cases mitigated variability. For instance, experienced testers in ET detected more subtle faults due to their ability to improvise, highlighting ET's reliance on human factors for effectiveness. Recent advancements have explored enhancements to ET, such as . A 2023 IEEE study by Coppola et al. investigated gamified ET tools for in web applications, involving 144 participants. The gamified approach, incorporating elements like leaderboards and badges, improved test case creation by 15-25% in terms of coverage and diversity compared to standard ET, while maintaining similar defect detection rates. Participants reported higher engagement, suggesting gamification as a means to boost exploratory activities without increasing . In agile contexts, a qualitative study by Neri, Marchand, and Walkinshaw, published in Springer's XP proceedings, analyzed ET integration within Scrum teams across multiple organizations. Interviews revealed that ET enhanced adaptability to changing requirements, enabling faster feedback loops and better alignment with sprint goals. Key success factors included team collaboration and shared charters, which mitigated risks of incomplete coverage; without these, ET's benefits diminished in larger teams. Despite these insights, empirical research on ET exhibits gaps, including a of longitudinal studies tracking long-term impacts on metrics and insufficient metrics for evaluating AI-integrated ET approaches, such as automated charter generation. Future work should address these to strengthen ET's evidence base in evolving development paradigms.

Real-World Applications

In , exploratory testing is widely applied to sites to investigate user flows and detect issues overlooked by scripted tests. For example, testers might simulate atypical shopping scenarios, such as rapid cart additions or cross-device session handoffs, revealing inconsistencies in or payment gateways. At , exploratory testing has been utilized internally to uncover subtle interface defects, as illustrated in a 2007 case where a young tester's unscripted exploration exposed documentation and replication challenges in . Similarly, in a crowdtesting project for La Redoute's app, exploratory sessions across 18 devices mimicked real user behaviors, identifying usability bugs and providing improvement suggestions that enhanced cross-platform consistency. For mobile app testing, exploratory sessions focus on device-specific behaviors during Android and iOS releases, allowing testers to probe interactions like gesture responses or battery impacts under varying conditions. This approach is particularly effective for revealing issues in dynamic environments, such as app performance across network fluctuations or OS-specific permissions. An industrial multiple case study across four software development companies demonstrated how exploratory testing addressed mobile-unique challenges, including location-based features and hardware integrations, leading to more robust app releases. In , exploratory testing integrates into banking systems to conduct security explorations during compliance audits, enabling testers to simulate adversarial actions like unauthorized access attempts or data leakage paths. This helps verify adherence to regulations such as PCI DSS by uncovering vulnerabilities in or flows. In complex payment environments, firms have employed exploratory testing to identify hidden risks, such as edge-case failures in , ensuring system reliability and reducing exposure to . Real-world applications highlight lessons from both successes and failures in exploratory testing. For instance, in case studies, exploratory testing has revealed integration bugs in pipelines, such as mismatched API responses during , preventing escalations to production; however, inadequate session documentation in one analyzed incident led to challenges in reproducing and prioritizing the defects. These examples underscore the importance of combining exploratory efforts with structured reporting to maximize impact in fast-paced environments.

Emerging Technologies

Cloud-based testing environments are transforming exploratory testing by providing scalable, remote access to diverse hardware configurations, enabling testers to conduct unscripted sessions without the constraints of local setups. These platforms allow parallel execution of exploratory activities across multiple devices, reducing setup time and increasing coverage for complex applications like mobile software. For instance, AWS Device Farm offers a where testers can interact with real physical devices for exploratory testing of new features, supporting manual debugging and ad-hoc explorations in a secure, on-demand manner. This scalability is particularly beneficial for distributed teams, as it eliminates the need for expensive in-house device labs while maintaining the flexibility inherent to exploratory approaches. The integration of (VR) and (AR) technologies is emerging as a key advancement in exploratory testing, particularly for applications designed for immersive user experiences. In VR/AR environments, exploratory testing involves testers navigating simulated spaces to assess spatial interactions, user immersion, and performance under varied conditions, revealing defects such as triggers or rendering inconsistencies that scripted tests might overlook. Manual exploratory sessions in these setups emphasize real-time user feedback and adaptive probing, ensuring that immersive apps deliver seamless experiences across hardware like headsets and sensors. For example, testers can explore virtual prototypes to identify flaws in AR overlays or VR , fostering iterative improvements in development cycles. This approach leverages the exploratory nature of testing to mimic end-user behaviors in controlled yet dynamic simulations. Big data analytics is increasingly applied to logs generated during exploratory testing sessions, enabling the identification of patterns in defect clusters and informing targeted testing strategies. By processing session-based logs—which capture tester actions, observations, and outcomes—analytics tools reveal concentrations of defects in specific modules or workflows, a phenomenon known as defect clustering where a of issues arise in fewer than 20% of the codebase. In practice, post-session analysis of these logs helps quantify defect distribution and reproducibility, highlighting areas of weak coverage or coding vulnerabilities without relying on predefined scripts. This data-driven insight enhances the efficiency of exploratory testing by guiding future sessions toward high-risk zones, though it requires robust practices to ensure comprehensive data capture. As of 2025, collaborative platforms are rising in prominence for supporting real-time exploratory testing among distributed teams, facilitating shared sessions and instant feedback to bridge geographical gaps. These platforms integrate features like live screen sharing, concurrent annotations, and centralized defect logging, allowing multiple testers to contribute to a single exploratory charter simultaneously. For example, tools such as TestRail enable time-boxed sessions with real-time , where team members can observe and intervene in exploratory activities , boosting collective discovery of issues. This trend aligns with agile practices in global teams, where synchronous sharing reduces miscommunication and accelerates defect resolution, with adoption projected to grow as persists.

AI and Automation Integration

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into exploratory testing has evolved to augment human testers by providing real-time guidance and automating routine aspects, allowing for more focused creative exploration. AI-guided tools, such as generative AI models like ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot, assist in suggesting testing heuristics, brainstorming edge cases, and dynamically generating test charters based on initial user inputs or application context. For instance, these tools can analyze requirements or past session data to propose exploratory paths, such as prioritizing security vulnerabilities in a login feature, thereby expanding the scope of human-led discovery without rigid scripting. In hybrid automation approaches, AI handles repetitive tasks within exploratory sessions, such as visual , while preserving human oversight for nuanced judgment. Platforms like Testim leverage AI to offer session-based suggestions, including smart locators for UI elements and playback of exploratory actions, which automate and bug drafting from screenshots or audio logs. Similarly, Applitools employs Visual AI to scan interfaces for anomalies across devices, automating detection of layout shifts during ad-hoc exploration and integrating with pipelines for seamless feedback, thus freeing testers to pursue innovative defect hunting. Tools such as Reflect and Mabl further enhance end-to-end testing with AI exploration, where Reflect enables no-code, AI-powered creation and maintenance of tests through natural language prompts, adapting to UI changes and supporting rapid exploratory test building. Mabl's agentic AI platform automates test creation, execution, and analysis, providing context-aware insights to facilitate exploratory workflows. Additionally, Keploy supports auto-generation of tests from API traffic, using AI to replicate complex interactions and uncover edge cases in exploratory API testing. This synergy enhances efficiency in Agile environments by combining AI's pattern recognition with human . A growing trend as of 2025 involves agentic AI systems, which autonomously perform exploratory actions such as UI interactions and decision-making in testing environments, further augmenting human-led sessions by handling complex, multi-step explorations. Despite these advancements, challenges persist, including AI-induced biases in suggestion generation that may overlook diverse user scenarios if training data lacks inclusivity, necessitating rigorous validation of outputs. Human oversight remains essential in complex, ambiguous contexts where AI struggles with novel ambiguities or inconsistent results, as seen in generative models that require manual refinement for accurate test charters. Ethical concerns around algorithmic discrimination further underscore the need for diverse datasets and transparency in AI-driven tools. Projections for 2025 indicate AI could improve overall efficiency by up to 45% in Agile and pipelines, primarily through reduced maintenance and faster session analysis, according to industry analyses. Pilot programs at , using Azure DevOps with AI-generated automation from manual exploratory inputs, have demonstrated streamlined transitions to . Google's internal use of Gemini models for automating UI testing supports enhanced QA workflows by reducing manual effort in exploratory phases. These developments position AI as a transformative co-pilot, scaling exploratory practices amid accelerating software delivery demands.

References

  1. https://glossary.istqb.org/en_US/term/1261
  2. https://www.kaner.com/pdfs/NatureOfExploratoryTest.pdf
  3. https://www.astqb.org/documents/Glossary-of-Software-Testing-Terms-v3.pdf
  4. https://www.satisfice.com/exploratory-testing
  5. https://satisfice.us/articles/et-article.pdf
  6. http://bth.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:834260
  7. https://istqb.org/?sdm_process_download=1&download_id=3345
  8. https://glossary.istqb.org/en_US/term/quality-assurance
  9. https://kaner.com/?p=46
  10. https://www.atlassian.com/continuous-delivery/software-testing/exploratory-testing
  11. https://www.developsense.com/presentations/2009-09-ExploratoryTesting.pdf
  12. https://web-backend.simula.no/sites/default/files/publications/Simula.simula.2992.pdf
  13. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~luluo/Courses/17939Report.pdf
  14. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/software-testing/history-of-software-testing/
  15. https://bbst.courses/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/BBST-Exploring-Testing-Open-Course.pdf
  16. https://kaner.com/pdfs/ETatQAI.pdf
  17. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/software-testing
  18. https://associationforsoftwaretesting.org/legacy_of_ast/
  19. https://www.satisfice.com/about-james-bach
  20. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContextDrivenTesting
  21. https://pragprog.com/titles/ehxta/explore-it/
  22. https://leanpub.com/exploratorytesting
  23. https://mai24ma-ha.lms.nodehill.se/uploads/documents/2019-08-29T09-13-16/Exploratory%20Testing%20-%20Cem%20Kaner.pdf
  24. https://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/5214
  25. https://www.satisfice.com/download/session-based-test-management
  26. https://testing.gershon.info/reporter/
  27. https://www.ministryoftesting.com/software-testing-glossary/session-based-test-management-sbtm
  28. https://www.testrail.com/blog/jira-testing-tools/
  29. https://www.testmo.com/guides/best-exploratory-testing-tools/
  30. https://www.automatetheplanet.com/exploratory-testing-mind-maps/
  31. https://www.testrail.com/blog/perform-exploratory-testing/
  32. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258403762_Team_Exploratory_Testing_Sessions
  33. https://www.lambdatest.com/blog/session-based-test-management-in-agile/
  34. https://reflect.run/
  35. https://www.mabl.com/
  36. https://keploy.io/
  37. https://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/771
  38. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3624032.3624042
  39. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-94544-1_11
  40. https://www.agilealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Exploratory-testing-Real-world-rapid-testing-in-Agile-teams-Ravi-Shanker-Full-Deck.pdf
  41. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4991527
  42. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/test/connected-mode-exploratory-testing?view=azure-devops
  43. https://agilealliance.org/resources/experience-reports/taking-small-steps-big-organization-experience-report-implementing-exploratory-testing-large-organization/
  44. https://www.bairesdev.com/blog/exploratory-testing/
  45. https://katalon.com/resources-center/blog/exploratory-testing
  46. https://torkar.github.io/pdfs/ese-exp-test.pdf
  47. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4343733
  48. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/stvr.1827
  49. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/19/10016
  50. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1541817
  51. https://www.satisfice.com/articles/et-article.pdf
  52. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6298893
  53. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1007/s10664-014-9301-4
  54. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0950584918302325
  55. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10375892
  56. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262685574_An_Experiment_on_the_Effectiveness_and_Efficiency_of_Exploratory_Testing
  57. https://testing.googleblog.com/2007/05/8-year-old-exploratory-testing.html
  58. https://www.ctg.com/case-studies/la-redoute-e-commerce-app-crowdtesting
  59. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300545881_Mobile_Application_Testing_in_Industrial_Contexts_An_Exploratory_Multiple_Case-Study
  60. https://ubertesters.com/blog/exploratory-testing-in-complex-payment-environments/
  61. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381061710_Investigating_the_Role_of_Exploratory_Testing_in_Agile_Software_Development_A_Case_Study_Analysis
  62. https://aws.amazon.com/device-farm/faqs/
  63. https://www.testrail.com/blog/mobile-app-testing/
  64. https://www.deviqa.com/blog/how-to-test-arvr-apps-the-right-way/
  65. https://www.immersivelearning.news/2021/05/06/how-to-test-augmented-virtual-reality-ar-vr/
  66. https://www.browserstack.com/guide/defect-clustering-in-software-testing
  67. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.5402/2012/324838
  68. https://www.testrail.com/blog/software-testing-trends/
  69. https://testomat.io/blog/top-exploratory-testing-tools-to-watch/
  70. https://www.qt.io/quality-assurance/blog/exploratory-testing-with-genai-how-ai-becomes-an-external-imagination-in-software-qa
  71. https://www.getxray.app/blog/ai-in-exploratory-testing
  72. https://www.testim.io/blog/ai-software-testing-revolution/
  73. https://www.testim.io/blog/functional-and-visual-testing/
  74. https://applitools.com/blog/ai-driven-testing-with-applitools-autonomous/
  75. https://testguild.com/automation-testing-trends/
  76. https://www.baltictimes.com/testing_ai_applications__challenges_and_best_practices/
  77. https://testworthy.us/blogs/challenges-in-ai-testing/
  78. https://www.practitest.com/assets/pdf/stot-2025.pdf
  79. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/devops/from-manual-testing-to-ai-generated-automation-our-azure-devops-mcp-playwright-success-story/
  80. https://odsc.medium.com/gemini-2-5-computer-use-model-google-brings-agentic-ui-control-to-developers-d22755f3a177
  81. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-top-companies-using-ai-speed-up-software-testing-2025-qasource-l8qoc
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.