Abstract
Safety standards such as IEC 61508 [1] and ISO 26262 [2] were written assuming that highly complex safety-critical systems were self-contained, capital intensive, one-off products and that the assurance argument was to be renewed with every product change. In this paper, we explain how the increasing complexity, scale, continuous updates and heterogeneous nature of future safety-critical software systems requires a paradigm shift in the software safety qualification and certification processes. We examine existing approaches to software safety argumentation and explain how the essential components of the argumentation can be transferred to future software architectures and development processes. In particular, we discuss the relevance of constructive measures for ensuring safety, evidence collection to demonstrate the effectiveness and integrity of these measures and process approaches to assess the predictability of the overall quality and integrity of the software. Our aim is to provide an industrial perspective on the areas of collaboration required to transfer relevant research results into future standards.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC): Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems, 2nd edn. International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva (2010). ISBN 978-2-88910-524-3
ISO. ISO 26262: Road vehicles - Functional Safety. Norm (2011)
Beck, K., et al.: Manifesto for Agile Software Development (2001). Agile Alliance. Accessed 14 June 2010
OSADL: SIL2LinuxMP Webpage. http://www.osadl.org/SIL2LinuxMP.sil2-linux-project.0.html. Accessed 22 May 2018
MacGregor, J., et al.: Transferkonzept und Leitfaden für die Anwendung in der Praxis, SPES_XT Report. http://spes2020.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/resultate_xt_EC4.html. Accessed 22 May 2018
AUTOSAR Project. https://www.autosar.org/. Accessed 16 May 2018
Clements, P., Northrop, P.: Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns, vol. 3. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)
VDA QMC Working Group 13/Automotive SIG: Automotive SPICE Process Assessment/Reference Model (2015)
CMMI. https://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/tools/index.cfm. Accessed 22 May 2018
Atlassian: Agile Tools for Software Teams. https://de.atlassian.com/software/jira/agile. Accessed 22 May 2018
IBM: Collaborating through social coding. https://www.ibm.com/cloud/garage/content/culture/practice_social_coding/. Accessed 22 May 2018
Doss, O., Kelly, T., Stålhane, T., Haugset, B., Dixon, M.: Integration of the 4 + 1 software safety assurance principles with scrum. In: Stolfa, J., Stolfa, S., O’Connor, R.V., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2017. CCIS, vol. 748, pp. 72–82. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64218-5_6
Oliveira, P., Ferreira, A.L., Dias, D., Pereira, T., Monteiro, P., Machado, R.J.: An analysis of the commonality and differences between ASPICE and ISO26262 in the context of software development. In: Stolfa, J., Stolfa, S., O’Connor, R.V., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2017. CCIS, vol. 748, pp. 216–227. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64218-5_17
Hawkins, R.: Software safety assurance-what is sufficient? (2009)
Ye, F., Kelly, T.: COTS product selection for safety-critical systems. In: Kazman, R., Port, D. (eds.) Proceedings of ICCBSS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2959, pp. 53–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24645-9_17
Boyer, A., et al.: methods and techniques for contract-based safety analysis, SPES_XT Report. http://spes2020.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/resultate_xt_EC1.html. Accessed 22 May 2018
Platschek, A., Mc Guire, N., Bulwahn, L.: Certifying Linux_ Lessons Learned in Three Years of SIL2LinuxMP. http://www.bmw-carit.de/downloads/publications/-EWC2018_Certifying-Linux-Lessons-Learned.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2018
Hotz, L., et al.: Configuration in Industrial Product Families: The ConIPF Methodology. IOS Press Inc, Amsterdam (2006)
ISO: ISO/IEC 15504 (Information technology — Process assessment). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland (2003)
Basili, V.R.: Software modeling and measurement: the Goal/Question/Metric paradigm (1992)
Luo, Y., et al.: Metrics design for safety assessment. Inf. Softw. Technol. 73, 151–163 (2016)
ISO/IEC: Systems and Software Engineering –Measurement Process, ISO/IEC 15939:2008. International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland (2007)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
MacGregor, J., Burton, S. (2018). Challenges in Assuring Highly Complex, High Volume Safety-Critical Software. In: Gallina, B., Skavhaug, A., Schoitsch, E., Bitsch, F. (eds) Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. SAFECOMP 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11094. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99229-7_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99229-7_22
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99228-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99229-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)