Paper detail

A systematic literature review on process model testing: Approaches, challenges, and research directions

Testing is a key concern when developing process-oriented solutions as it supports modeling experts who have to deal with increasingly complex models and scenarios such as cross-organizational processes. However, the complexity of the research landscape and the diverse set of approaches and goals impedes the analysis and advancement of research and the identification of promising research areas, challenges, and research directions. Hence, a systematic literature review is conducted to identify interesting areas for future research and to provide an overview of existing work. Over 6300 potentially matching publications were determined during the search (literature databases, selected conferences\journals, and snowballing). Finally, 153 publications from 2002 to 2013 were selected, analyzed, and classified. It was found that the software engineering domain has influenced process model testing approaches (e.g., regarding terminology and concepts), but recent publications are presenting independent approaches. Additionally, historical data sources are not exploited to their full potential and current testing related publications frequently contain evaluations of relatively weak quality. Overall, the publication landscape is unevenly distributed so that over 31 publications concentrate on test-case generation but only 4 publications conduct performance test. Hence, the full potential of such insufficiently covered testing areas is not exploited. This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of the interdisciplinary topic of process model testing. Several open research questions are identified, for example, how to apply testing to cross-organizational or legacy processes and how to adequately include users into the testing methods.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.