You are presented with multiple paper abstracts, alongside the associated literature review and chapter titles. Given the provided information, you are going to do a literature review. Please generate a coherent literature review that synthesizes the content, draws connections between different works, highlights major findings, and identifies any gaps in the existing research.

Literature Review Title: Defect Bash - Literature Review 
Chapter Title:  DEFINITION 
1. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB001):  Every bug has a story behind it. The people that discover and resolve it need to coordinate, to get information from documents, tools, or other people, and to navigate through issues of accountability, ownership, and organizational structure. This paper reports on a field study of coordination activities around bug fixing that used a combination of case study research and a survey of software professionals. Results show that the histories of even simple bugs are strongly dependent on social, organizational, and technical knowledge that cannot be solely extracted through automation of electronic repositories, and that such automation provides incomplete and often erroneous accounts of coordination. The paper uses rich bug histories and survey results to identify common bug fixing coordination patterns and to provide implications for tool designers and researchers of coordination in software development. 
2. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB002):  While leadership dominates the attention of many, it is management that drives the work at hand. Julian Birkinshaw and Jules Goddard suggest that you reconsider the management model you practice daily to see if it's really working inside your company. 
3. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB003):  We have used CI (Continuous Integration) and various software testing techniques to achieve a robust C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) multi-platform system. Because of rapid changes in the C4ISR domain and in the software technology, frequent critical design adjustments and in turn vast code modifications or additions become inevitable. Defect fixes might also incur code changes. These unavoidable code modifications may put a big risk in the reliability of a mission critical system. Also, in order to stay competitive in the C4ISR market, a company must make recurring releases without sacrificing quality. We have designed and implemented an XML driven automated test framework that enabled us developing numerous high quality tests rapidly. While using CI with automated software test techniques, we have aimed at speeding up the delivery of high quality and robust software by decreasing integration procedure, which is one of the main bottleneck points in the industry. This work describes how we have used CI and software test techniques in a large-scaled, multi-platform, multi-language, distributed C4ISR project and what the benefits of such a system are. 
4. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB004):  The Department of Defense has a need for an identity management system that uses two factor authentications to ensure that only the correct individuals get access to their top secret flight simulator program. Currently the Department of Defense does not have a web interface sign in system. We will be creating a system that will allow them to access their programs, back office and administrator functions remotely. A security plan outlining our security architecture will be delivered prior to the final code roll out. The plan will include responses to encryption used and the security architecture applied in the final documentation. The code will be delivered in phases to work out any issues that may occur during the implementation. 
5. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB005):  The lowly test plan is perhaps the least appreciated of all supporting (read: noncode) software development artifacts. All projects need one, but few engineers appreciate their existence. So it's important to spend no more time than is absolutely necessary in the creation, care, and feeding of the test plan. Ten minutes, to be precise.

Literature Review:
Several definitions for defect bash were found. Next we present three definitions that appeared as the most popular, i.e. these definitions were used in several places. In Desikan and Ramesh's book  , the defect bash is defined as "an ad hoc testing done by people performing different roles in the same time duration during the integration testing phase, to bring out all types of defects that may have been left out by planned testing. It is not based on any written testing case". The definition in Wikipedia (2012) is "a bug bash is a procedure where all the developers, testers, program managers, usability researchers, designers, documentation folks, and even sometimes marketing people, put aside their regular day-to-day duties and pound on the product to get as many eyes on the product as possible". ALLInterviews (2012) and QTP (2012) have the same definition of "it is an ad hoc testing where people performing different roles in an organization test the product together at the same time. The testing by all the participants during defect bashing is not based on written test cases. What is to be tested is left to an individual's decision and creativity. This is usually done when the software is close to being ready to release". Table 2 presents the benefits of the defect bash. We can see the most frequently mentioned benefit from BIB002 BIB003   Dolan and Matthew, 1993; QTP, 2012;   BIB005 Wikipedia, 2012;  BIB006 Wong, 2011; BIB004 How to do defect bash 13: Anonymous 1, 2010; Anonymous 4, 2011; Bach,1998;         BIB001 Spagnuol, 2007 Against defect bash 1:  Report after defect bash 5: Anonymous 2, 2010; Anonymous 3, 2011;   ; MarkusN, 2012 Advertisement for doing defect bash 10: Anonymous 5, 2012; Anonymous 6, 2012;         Total 44