Using Incident Analysis to Derive a Methodology for Assessing Safety in Programmable Systems

  • Eamon J. Broomfield
  • Paul W. H. Chung

Abstract

This paper describes the development of a generic methodology for assessing safety in programmable systems. A functional model, a new graphical technique and Method Study are used to analyse incidents. The results of the analysis form the basis of the methodology. A case study is used to show how the methodology can be applied.

Keywords

Burner Mercury HAZOP Lesan 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Bowen 93]
    Bowen J, Stavridou V: “Safety-critical systems, formal methods and standards”. Software Engineering Journal 8: 189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [Brazendale 94]
    Brazendale J, Jeffs AR: “Out of control: failures involving control systems”. High Integrity Systems 1: 67–72.Google Scholar
  3. [Broomfield 94a]
    Broomfield ET, Chung PWH: “A hazard identification methodology for programmable systems”. In: “Risk Management and Critical Protective Systems”, Safety & Reliability Conference, Altrincham, Cheshire, 12–13 October 1994. SaRS Ltd.Google Scholar
  4. [Broomfield 94b]
    Broomfield ET, Chung PWH: “Hazard Identification in Programmable Systems–A Methodology and Case Study”. Applied Computing Review 2: 7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [Chudleigh 93]
    Chudleigh MF, Clare JN: “The benefits of SUSI: safety analysis of user system interaction”. In: “Safecomp 93”–12th International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security (Ed. Gorski J), Springer-Verlag, London, pp. 219–229.Google Scholar
  6. [Edwards 93]
    Edwards K: “Real-time Structured Methods - Systems Analysis”, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 554pp.Google Scholar
  7. [Elliott 68]
    Elliott DM, Owen JM: “Critical examination in process design”. The Chemical Engineer, November:377–383.Google Scholar
  8. [Fink 93]
    Fink R, Oppert S, Coolison P, Cooke G, Dhanjal S, Lesan H, Shaw R: “Data management in clinical laboratory information systems”. In: “Directions in Safety-Critical Systems” (Eds: Redmill F, Anderson T), Springer-Verlag, London, pp. 84–95.Google Scholar
  9. [Grady 93]
    Grady R: “Practical results from measuring software quality”. Communications of the ACM 36: 62–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [HSE 71]
    Health & Safety Executive: “Evaporating and other ovens”, HSW 46, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
  11. [HSE 87]
    Health & Safety Executive: “Programmable electronic systems for safety-related applications”. No.2 Technical Guidelines, HMSO.Google Scholar
  12. [Kershaw 93]
    Kershaw J: “The special problems of military systems”. Microprocessors and Microsystems 17: 25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [Laprie 93]
    Laprie J-C: “Dependability: from concepts to limits”. In: “Safecomp 93”–12th International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security (Ed. Gorski J), Springer-Verlag, London, pp. 157–168.Google Scholar
  14. [Leveson 83]
    Leveson NG, Harvey PR: “Analyzing software safety”. IEEE Transactions of Software Engineering SE-9: 569–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [Redmill 93]
    Redmill F: “Software in safety-critical applications - a review of current issues”. In: “Safety critical systems: current issues, techniques and standards” (Eds. Redmill F, Anderson T), Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  16. [Taylor 94]
    Taylor JR: “Developing safety cases for command and control systems”. In: “Technology and Assessment of Safety-critical Systems”–Proceedings of the 2nd Safety-critical Systems Symposium, Birmingham, UK, 8–10 February 1994 (Eds. Redmill F, Anderson T), Springer-Verlag, London, pp. 69–78Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eamon J. Broomfield
    • 1
  • Paul W. H. Chung
    • 1
  1. 1.Loughborough University of TechnologyLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations