An Analysis of the Commonality and Differences Between ASPICE and ISO26262 in the Context of Software Development

  • Pedro Oliveira
  • André L. Ferreira
  • Daniel Dias
  • Tiago Pereira
  • Paula MonteiroEmail author
  • Ricardo J. Machado
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 748)


The automotive industry is facing new challenges resulting from recent technological evolutions. Software is having a major impact on the level of functionality being delivered by systems present in vehicles and the role of software is believed to be more relevant in the future. This stresses organizations in the automotive domain to improve their software development capability to deal with the increasing levels of systems complexity. In this paper, a harmonization exercise is performed considering the Automotive SPICE and ISO 26262 which are two of the most relevant quality standards for organizations developing systems in the automotive domain. The goals are to have a deeper understanding of the scenario where organizations have a sub-scope of ASPICE adopted (HIS scope) and wish to adopt jointly the ISO26262 standard as a strategic approach to improving development capability. The results show that an organization with HIS implemented still has a considerable scope of ISO26262 to implement.


ASPICE v3 ISO 26262 Gap analysis Multi-model Process quality Product safety Compliance Harmonization Automotive industry 


  1. 1.
    Ross, H.: Functional Safety for Road Vehicles. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-33361-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Loon, H.Van: Process Assessment and ISO/IEC 15504: A Reference Book. Springer, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pardo-Calvache, C.J., García-Rubio, F.O., Piattini-Velthuis, M.G., Pino-Correa, F.J., Baldassarre, M.T.: A 360-degree process improvement approach based on multiple models (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    VDA QMC Working Group 13/Automotive SIG: Automotive SPICE Process Assessment/Reference Model (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ISO: ISO 26262:2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pardo, C., Pino, F.J., García, F., Piattini, M.: Homogenization of models to support multi-model processes in improvement environments. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Software and Data Technology - ICSOFT 2009, vol. 1, pp. 151–156 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garzás, J., Pino, F.J., Piattini, M., Fernández, C.M.: A maturity model for the Spanish software industry based on ISO standards. Comput. Stand. Interfaces. 35, 616–628 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pardo, C., Pino, F.J., Garcia, F., Baldassarre, M.T., Piattini, M.: From chaos to the systematic harmonization of multiple reference models: a harmonization framework applied in two case studies. J. Syst. Softw. 86, 125–143 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pardo-Calvache, C.J., García-Rubio, F.O., Piattini-Velthuis, M.: A reference ontology for harmonizing process-reference models Una ontología de referencia para la armonización de modelos de referencia de procesos (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pardo, C., Pino, F.J., Garcia, F., Piattini, M., Baldassarre, M.T.: A process for driving the harmonization of models. In: 11th International Conference on Product Focused Software - PROFES 2010, pp. 51–54 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    SPICE: Enterprise SPICE.
  14. 14.
    Adedjouma, M., Dubois, H., Terrier, F., Kitouni, T.: Merging the quality assessment of processes and products in automotive domain. In: Dieste, O., Jedlitschka, A., Juristo, N. (eds.) PROFES 2012. LNCS, vol. 7343, pp. 275–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-31063-8_21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Winkler, D., O’Connor, R.V., Messnarz, R. (eds.): EuroSPI 2012. CCIS, vol. 301. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-31199-4 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Messnarz, R., Ross, H.-L., Habel, S., König, F., Koundoussi, A., Unterrreitmayer, J., Ekert, D.: Integrated automotive SPICE and safety assessments. Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 14, 279–288 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Messnarz, R., König, F., Bachmann, V.O.: Experiences with trial assessments combining automotive SPICE and functional safety standards. In: Winkler, D., O’Connor, R.V., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2012. CCIS, vol. 301, pp. 266–275. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-31199-4_23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johannessen, P., Halonen, Ö., Örsmark, O.: Functional safety extensions to automotive SPICE according to ISO 26262. In: O’Connor, R.V., Rout, T., McCaffery, F., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2011. CCIS, vol. 155, pp. 52–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21233-8_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Siviy, J., Kirwan, P., Morley, J., Marino, L.: Maximizing your process improvement ROI through harmonization. Software Engineering Institute (SEI), Carnegie Mellon University (2008).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pedro Oliveira
    • 1
    • 2
  • André L. Ferreira
    • 3
  • Daniel Dias
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tiago Pereira
    • 1
    • 2
  • Paula Monteiro
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ricardo J. Machado
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.CCG-Centro de Computação GráficaGuimarãesPortugal
  2. 2.Centro ALGORITMI, Escola de EngenhariaUniversidade do MinhoGuimarãesPortugal
  3. 3.Bosch Car Multimedia Portugal S.A.BragaPortugal

Personalised recommendations