Effectiveness of software testing techniques in enterprise: a case study

The level of investigation.
The investigation of the need of software testing and QA varies from 
the analysis of concepts and definitions (“IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering 
Terminology,” 1990; McCall, Richards, & Walters, 1977) to efficiency of software testing methods, 
software testing tools and automation testing. 
Researchers analyzed the importance of both terms, software testing and quality assurance 
(DeVolder, Ghazanshahi, & Zadeh, 2008; Garvin, 1984; Kitchenham & Lawrence, 1996), by giving 
some background on software testing principles and testing terminology. Other studies focus on the 
effectiveness and use of following testing techniques: almost all White-box and Black-box techniques 

---

8
(Jorgensen, 2016; M. E. Khan, 2011a, 2011b; Mohd Ehmer Khan & Khan, 2012; Nidhra & Dondeti, 
2012; Saglietti, Oster, & Pinte, 2008), static and dynamic testing and their tools (DeVolder et al., 2008; 
Emanuelsson & Nilsson, 2008; Ernst, 2003; Fagan, 2001; Hamlet, 1995; Jorgensen, 2016; Nidhra & 
Dondeti, 2012; Zitser, Lippmann, & Leek, 2004), functional testing (DeVolder et al., 2008; Hamlet, 
1995; M. E. Khan, 2011a; Mohd Ehmer Khan & Khan, 2012; Liu & Kuan Tan, 2009), unit testing (Di 
Tommaso & Roche, 2011; Hamlet, 1995; Williams, Kudrjavets, & Nagappan, 2009), system testing 
(Hamlet, 1995), 
There are more studies conducted to determine how improve software testing effectively and 
efficiently, such as the one by Bertolino (2007), Glass, Collard, Bertolino, Bach, & Kaner (2006), 
Vegas, Juristo, & Basili (2002) and Juristo, Moreno, & Strigel (2006). Additionally, similar empirical 
studies are prepared by Ng, Murnane, Reed, Grant, & Chen, (2004), Causevic, Sundmark, & 
Punnekkat (2010) and Lee, Kang, & Lee (2012), Ng et al. (2004). Other authors distinguish particular 
testing techniques, such as unit testing (Di Tommaso & Roche, 2011; Williams et al., 2009), regression 
testing (Elbaum, Malishevsky, & Rothermel, 2002; Li, Harman, & Hierons, 2007; Org, 2012; 
Rothermel, Untch, Chu, & Harrold, 1999; Srivastava, 2008; Wong, Horgan, London, & Agrawal, 
1997), functional testing (Popescu, 2010) and analyze their use and effectiveness. Moreover, software 
testing methods can be automated fully or partially in order to shorten the period of software 
development. There are considerations on what processes should be automated or be aware of 
automation (Garousi & Mäntylä, 2016, D. M. Rafi, Moses, Petersen, & Mäntylä, 2016; Mulder & 
Whyte, 2013). Although, other authors present different approaches to automate: detection of 
infeasible paths in software testing to the extent of test coverage (Gong & Yao, 2010), some testing 
techniques (unit testing, functional testing, regression testing and performance testing (Williams, 
Kudrjavets, & Nagappan, 2009; Cem Kaner, n.d.; Last, Friedman, & Kandel, 2004). And Kasurinen, 
Taipale, & Smolander (2010) observe the practices in software test automation and identified factors 
that affect software test automation. 
However, most of the mentioned studies are based on theoretical aspects, except some surveys 
(Causevic et al., 2010; Kasurinen et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2012; Ng et al., 2004) that focus on empirical 
data collected via a case study of industrial software development companies in different business 
sectors. Only Causevic et al. (2010), Kasurinen et al. (2010) and Lee et al. (2012) of all mentioned 
researchers provide both, qualitative and quantitative, data analysis from an industrial questionnaire 
survey, with a focus on current practices and preferences on contemporary aspects of software testing.