Skip to main content

Is Current Incremental Safety Assurance Sound?

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
  • 1344 Accesses

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 9338))

Abstract

Incremental design is an essential part of engineering. Without it, engineering would not likely be an economic, nor an effective, aid to economic progress. Further, engineering relies on this view of incrementality to retain the reliability attributes of the engineering method. When considering the assurance of safety for such artifacts, it is not surprising that the same economic and reliability arguments are deployed to justify an incremental approach to safety assurance. In a sense, it is possible to argue that, with engineering artifacts becoming more and more complex, it would be economically disastrous to not “do” safety incrementally. Indeed, many enterprises use such an incremental approach, reusing safety artifacts when assuring incremental design changes. In this work, we make some observations about the inadequacy of this trend and suggest that safety practices must be rethought if incremental safety approaches are ever going to be fit for purpose. We present some examples to justify our position and comment on what a more adequate approach to incremental safety assurance may look like.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Althammer, E., Schoitsch, E., Sonneck, G., Eriksson, H., Vinter, J.: Modular certification support - the DECOS concept of generic safety cases. INDIN 2008, 258–263 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Birch, J., Rivett, R., Habli, I., Bradshaw, B., Botham, J., Higham, D., Jesty, P., Monkhouse, H., Palin, R.: Safety cases and their role in ISO 26262 functional safety assessment. In: Bitsch, F., Guiochet, J., Kaâniche, M. (eds.) SAFECOMP. LNCS, vol. 8153, pp. 154–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Birch, J., Rivett, R., Habli, I., Bradshaw, B., Botham, J., Higham, D., Monkhouse, H., Palin, R.: A layered model for structuring automotive safety arguments. In: European Dependable Computing Conference (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bunkley, N.: GM engineer says he didn’t remember changing ignition switch part. Automotive News 28 May 2014. http://www.autonews.com/article/20140528/OEM11/140529859/gm-engineer-says-he-didnt-remember-changing-ignition-switch-part

  5. Center for Devices and Radiological Health: Device approvals, denials and clearances 4 June 2014. http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/productsandmedicalprocedures/deviceapprovalsandclearances/default.htm

  6. Conmy, P., Nicholson, M., McDermid, J.: Safety assurance contracts for integrated modular avionics. In: 8th Australian Workshop on Safety Critical Systems and Software (SCS 2003). vol. 33, pp. 69–78. Australian Computer Society (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  7. de Roever, W., et al. (eds.): Concurrency Verification: Introduction to Compositional and Non-compositional Methods. North-Holland, Amerstadam (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dittel, T., Aryus, H.-J.: How to “Survive” a safety case according to ISO 26262. In: Schoitsch, E. (ed.) SAFECOMP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6351, pp. 97–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Elmqvist, J., Nadjm-Tehrani, S.: Tool support for incremental failure mode and effects analysis of component-based systems. In: DATE 2008. pp. 921–927 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Federal Aviation Administration: Ac20-148: Software reusable components (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gabbay, D.M., Woods, J. (eds.): Handbook of the History of Logic: The Many Valued and Nonmonotonic Turn in Logic, vol. 8. North-Holland, Amsterdam (2007)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Groeger, L.: Four medical implants that escaped FDA scrutiny 30 April 2012. http://www.propublica.org/special/four-medical-implants-that-escaped-fda-scrutiny

  13. Gutierrez, G., et al.: GM chose not to implement a fix for ignition problem. NBC News 13 March 2014. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/gm-recall/gm-chose-not-implement-fix-ignition-problem-n51731

  14. Hatcliff, J.A.L.K., Lee, I., Macdonald, A., Anura, F., Robkin, M., Vasserman, E., Weininger, S., Goldman, J.: Rationale and architecture principles for medical application platforms. In: ICCPS 2012. pp. 3–12 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Holloway, M.: Making the implicit explicit. In: ISSC 2013. Boston (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Internatiional Standard Organization: ISO 26262: Road vehicles - Functional safety (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson, C.W.: What are emergent properties and how do they affect the engineering of complex systems? Rel. Eng. & Sys. Safety 91(12), 1475–1481 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lisagor, O., Kelly, T.: Incremental safety assessment: Theory and practice. In: Proceedings of 26th International System Safety Conference. Minneapolis (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Palin, R., Ward, D., Habli, I., Rivett, R.: ISO 26262 safety cases - Compliance and assurance. In: Procedings of 6th IET International Conference on System Safety, pp. 1–6 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Spangler, T.: Delphi told GM Ignition Switch Didn’t Meet Specs. Detroit Free Press, Michigan (2014). http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/03/30/gm-ignition-switches-recall-congressional-report/7085919/

    Google Scholar 

  21. Thompson, H.: Researchers say DePuy hip ancestry shows 510(k) flaws 19 February 2013. http://www.mddionline.com/article/researchers-say-depuy-hip-ancestry-shows-510k-flaws

  22. Toulmin, S.E.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Vincenti, W.: What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wald, M., Vlasic, W.: ‘Upset’ GM engineer spoke in house inquiry. The New York Times 28 May 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/business/upset-gm-engineer-spoke-in-house-inquiry.html?_r=0

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the Automotive Partnership Canada, the Ontario Research Fund, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. Cassano .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Cassano, V. et al. (2015). Is Current Incremental Safety Assurance Sound?. In: Koornneef, F., van Gulijk, C. (eds) Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. SAFECOMP 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9338. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24249-1_34

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24249-1_34

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24248-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24249-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics