Software Testing Process Models Benefits&Drawbacks: a Systematic Literature Review <s> Inclusion based on citations and references <s> Producing high-quality software has been one of the greatest challenges of the development market in the last few years. The software testing is the essence of the quality assurance, but the implementation of this activity is still difficult due to many factors. This paper presents some factors that influence on the adoption of a testing process. Some of these factors were outlined in the literature, and others were selected empirically based on the work experience obtained in a large company. Besides, this paper presents the results of a survey carried out to identify factors that make difficult the implementation of software testing process in small-sized software organizations and a proposed approach of a testing process to them. <s> BIB001 </s> Software Testing Process Models Benefits&Drawbacks: a Systematic Literature Review <s> Inclusion based on citations and references <s> Software products quality is strongly influenced by the quality of the process that generated them; particularly, the testing process contributes to product quality and represents a significant effort in software development projects. In this context, this study aim to find which test process models has been defined, adapted or extended in software industry from 1990 to the current date. For this purpose, a systematic literature review has been performed according to relevant guidelines. This study has identified 23 test process models, many of them adapted or extended from TMMi and TPI, which have different architectures and the new ISO/IEC 29119 with an architectural approach aligned to other ISO/IEC software process models. <s> BIB002 </s> Software Testing Process Models Benefits&Drawbacks: a Systematic Literature Review <s> Inclusion based on citations and references <s> The software testing phase, despite its importance, is usually compromised by the lack of planning and resources in industry. This can risk the quality of the derived products. The identification of mandatory testing-related practices may lead to the definition of feasible processes for varied sizes of software companies. In this context, this work aims at identifying a set of key practices to support the definition of a generic, streamlined software testing process, based on practices that are described in the TMMi (Test Maturity Model integration), and verify the alignment of the devised process with the TMMi levels. We have performed a survey amongst Brazilian software testing professionals who work in both academia and industry, in order to identify priority practices to build the intended, streamlined process; additionally, we applied a diagnosis tool in order to measure the level of TMMi which is fulfilled with the devised process. A set of 33 (out of 81) practices were ranked as mandatory by most of participants, which represents 40 % of the TMMi’s full set of practices; on the downside, a testing process that relies on this subset of TMMi practices does not fully fulfil level 2 (Managed) of the maturity model. The identified subset of practices can guide the definition of a lean testing process when compared to a process that includes all TMMi practices; it is expected that such a process encourages a wider adoption of testing activities in software development; even though the streamlined process does not encompass many practices that are spread across TMMi levels, a substantial subset of level 2 practices (Managed) should be accomplished with its adoption. <s> BIB003
As the next step of the search strategy, we analyze papers which cite articles included in our set of results and were referenced in existing reviews. We perform this step with the aim to gather testing models which are mentioned in other reviews and that were not included in our review due to missing empirical studies. We included the article by Camargo et al. BIB003 cited in Rodrigues et al. BIB001 and manually added 12 articles from the references of the reviews by Afzal et al.  and Garcia et al. BIB002 . Therefore, the final list of papers consists of 35 papers, 22 included after the application of quality criteria plus 13 added from the other reviews (Fig. 1) . Table 6 presents the list of conferences/journals for the 13 papers that were added from other reviews. 