# US 2014/0195284 A1 · Computerized System and Method for Business Process Modeling and Testing > Agents: this data is available as JSON from the patentgrep API and MCP server — see https://patentgrep.com/llms.txt - Number: US 2014/0195284 A1 - Document ID: US20140195284A1 - Status: Published application - Kind: A1 - Application number: 14/066,760 - Filed: 2013-10-30 - Published: 2014-07-10 - Earliest claimed: 2012-10-31 - Applicants: Syntel, Inc - Inventors: Deepak Purandare; Priya Padmanabhan Lakshmanan - Web page: https://patentgrep.com/patent/US20140195284A1 ## CPC - G06Q 10/067: Enterprise or organisation modelling - G06Q: INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR ## Abstract A computerized system and method for building a business process test repository. This repository could be used to test and optimize business processes in an organization. In many cases, the test cases in the repository may be reused for different applications and/or products. Embodiments of the system develop test cases from a domain point of view and not from the application point of view. In some such embodiments, the test cases would not refer to any application, application user interface, screens, or user interface events, but would be from the vantage point of business actions. The test cases in the repository could be taken as a basis for starting a testing effort and customizing the test case for the application specific details. ## Claims ### Claim 1 A computer system comprising: a memory; a processor electrically coupled with the memory; wherein the memory has a machine-executable code stored thereon that causes the processor to: generate a business process diagram representative of a process flow for a business process, wherein the business process diagram includes a plurality of decision points in the business process; derive a matrix of business artifacts representative of each possible process flow and decision point in the business process; and develop a plurality of test cases based on the matrix of business artifacts. ### Claim 2 (depends on 1) The computer system as recited in claim 1, wherein the business process diagram includes one or more of entities, actors, tasks, sequence of tasks, message flow across entities, and data flow across tasks in the business process ### Claim 3 (depends on 1) The computer system as recited in claim 1, further including code for developing a plurality of scenarios that could be encountered in the business process from the matrix. ### Claim 4 (depends on 1) The computer system as recited in claim 1, wherein the matrix includes at least one actor. ### Claim 5 (depends on 4) The computer system as recited in claim 4, wherein the actor is a customer. ### Claim 6 (depends on 1) The computer system as recited in claim 1, wherein the test cases include an identification of test scenarios for flows that need to be validated. ### Claim 7 (depends on 1) The computer system as recited in claim 1, wherein each of the test cases are linked with respective test data ### Claim 8 (depends on 1) The computer system as recited in claim 1, further comprising code for converting at least a portion of the test cases from generic test cases to product specific test cases. ### Claim 9 (depends on 8) The computer system as recited in claim 8, further comprising code for converting from generic test cases to product specific test cases by retrieving a unique test list and generating product related test cases. ### Claim 10 (depends on 9) The computer system as recited in claim 9, wherein each test step in the unique test list corresponding with an expected result for an action to be performed in the test step. ### Claim 11 (depends on 10) The computer system as recited in claim 10, further comprising code for mapping an action a user need to perform to achieve the expected result. ### Claim 12 (depends on 11) The computer system as recited in claim 11, further comprising code for providing a user interface from which a user can define field configurations for at least a portion of the test cases. ### Claim 13 (depends on 1) The computer system as recited in claim 1, wherein the business process diagram is generated based on a functional analysis of a product to identify interactions between screens and modules. ### Claim 14 (depends on 1) The computer system as recited in claim 1, wherein deriving a matrix of business artifacts includes receiving one or more of field configurations, business rules and roles for a module as input. ### Claim 15 (depends on 14) The computer system as recited in claim 14, wherein test cases are developed for one or more of positive flow, negative flow, field validations, business rules validation, and roles validation. ### Claim 16 (depends on 15) The computer system as recited in claim 15, wherein test cases are developed by parsing through field names to create test cases for testing positive flow. ### Claim 17 (depends on 15) The computer system as recited in claim 15, wherein test cases are developed by parsing through field names to create test cases for testing field validation. ### Claim 18 (depends on 15) The computer system as recited in claim 15, wherein test cases are developed by parsing through field names to create test cases for testing business rules. ### Claim 19 (depends on 15) The computer system as recited in claim 15, wherein test cases are developed by parsing through field names to create test cases for testing permissions. ### Claim 20 (depends on 15) The computer system as recited in claim 15, wherein test cases are developed by parsing through field names to create test cases for testing customization of a module.