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):