Validation:
During the analysis of the longitudinal case-study, we did not find additional insights to change the framework, the findings were supported by the gathered data.
The discussion with the practitioners during the cross-company interview in step 3 showed that the practitioners appreciated having a framework to discuss such a complex problem, so the framework was validated. The input from the participants in the workshop combined with the input from the longitudinal study and the addition of the mitigation strategies, led to the final framework in Figure 2, which has been expanded, refined and simplified with respect to our previous publication.
Then, given that the PD definition proposed in [10] was based on the definition given for TD and we found several distinct differences between PD and TD, and therefore, we propose the following, revised definition for PD (RQ1):
Process debt is the occurrence of a sub-optimal process design, divergence from an optimal process or deficiencies in the infrastructure that might be beneficial in the short term but might generate a long-term negative impact for process stakeholders”.

4.2 Types of Process Debt (RQ1.2)

Besides categorizing PD based on where it originates, it is critical to understand what parts of the process are affected by the debt. Processes are made of several components, namely: roles, activities, documentation, etc. We provide a categorization based on such components, in a similar way as what is commonly used to categorize TD (e.g., code debt, architecture debt, requirement debt etc.). Based on the results from our analysis the following types of debt were recognized (visible in Figure 3):