Public Review

Involving all ASAM members to ensure high quality, usefulness and implementability of our standards.

Public Reviews

The purpose of a "Public Review" or a "Member Review" is to involve experts who are not part of the project group but work in the respective domain, to obtain their review feedback and to increase the overall quality and acceptance of a Standard prior to its release. 

Concept Paper: ASAM OpenTestSpecification

Deadline: May 28, 2024


The project C_2023_01 ASAM OpenTestSpecification is a follow-up project from the ASAM Test Specification report. This report showed that the Map of testing is becoming increasingly complex and efforts to view these different activities holistically are also very heterogenous. This project recommends to bring about a worldwide coordination of standardization in continuous follow-up activities, answering the following question: How can standardization be managed globally in the future? How long will we be able to accept this uncontrolled spread?


The concept paper of the ASAM OpenTestSpecification project group describes these areas of activity within the development of a Standard for test Specification for the domain of automotive testing. The document summarizes the results of the ASAM OpenTestSpecification project. The document structure provides a chronological overview of the progress of the project: from the definition of the scope, the identification of use cases and the derivation of requirements to the publication of a “Call for Candidates” to identify potential candidates to serve as a basis for standardization, the candidate selection and the exemplary implementation of a minimum viable product (MVP)


Before the release of the concept paper, the project group asks all experts to review the concept and provide feedback on 

  • Completeness:  Are there any missing parts or features that are required to use the standard? 
  • Unclarities and ambiguities:  Are there any terms, definitions or content parts that are imprecise, unclear, not (sufficiently) defined or not understandable?
  • Inconsistencies:  Are there any terms, definitions or content parts that contradict each other or are incompatible with other parts of the standard? Is the structure and line of reasoning plausible and consistent?
  • Usefulness:  According to your expertise, is the standard practical and useful? Does it meet current market needs and requirements? 
  • Implementability:  According to your expertise, is the standard in its current form feasible and can it be implemented cost-effectively? Does the standard allow an implementation with state-of-the-art technologies? Is the standard designed to be future-proof.
  • Please do not submit new use-cases, features or requirements for the upcoming release.


Review document


This is a public review. Membership is not required to take part. 



Stay informed! Subscribe to our Newsletter.