I do software QA on a physical device, that has a computer in it. We set up scenarios that exercise the software in specific ways. It is very much manual, following written tests driven by software requirements. This is specifically software testing, although we use the hardware to exercise the software.
Even exploratory has written tests that basically say "explore," and they are often assigned with a particular focus.
For something like what you do I find that there's often a cost/benefit trade off to be made:
#1 Create a mock system that you can run automated tests against.
#2 Only do the manual tests.
Which one is the 'right' decision depends largely on the expense of creating that mock system, the complexity of the system under test, the nature of the bugs you're getting from customers and the frequency with which your software changes.
Simple, infrequently changing system? Expensive to set up a mock system? #2.
Complex, frequently changing system? #1 will help more than you realize.
>Even exploratory has written tests that basically say "explore," and they are often assigned with a particular focus.
Of course. However, exploratory shouldn't mean following a script and it shouldn't mean doing repetitive work.
Even exploratory has written tests that basically say "explore," and they are often assigned with a particular focus.