Advertisement

SafeSpection – A Systematic Customization Approach for Software Hazard Identification

  • Christian Denger
  • Mario Trapp
  • Peter Liggesmeyer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5219)

Abstract

Software is an integral part of many technical systems and responsible for the realization of safety-critical features contained therein. Consequently, software has to be carefully considered in safety analysis efforts to ensure that it does not cause any system hazards. Safety engineering approaches borrowed from systems engineering, like Failure Mode and Effect Analysis, Fault Tree Analysis, or Hazard and Operability Studies, have been applied on software-intensive systems. However, in order to be successful, tailoring is needed to the characteristics of software and the concrete application context. Furthermore, due to the manual and expert-dependent nature of these techniques, the results are often not repeatable and address mainly syntactic issues. This paper presents the concepts of a customization framework to support the definition and implementation of project-specific software hazard identification approaches. The key-concepts of the approach, generic guide-phrases, and tailoring concepts to create objective, project-specific support to detect safety-weaknesses of software-intensive systems are introduced.

Keywords

Software Safety Guide-Phrases SafeSpection Software FMEA Software FTA Software HAZOP 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Knight, J.C.: Safety Critical Systems: Challenges and Directions. In: 24th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2002), pp. 547–550. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leveson, N.: Safeware – System Safety and Computers. Addison Wesley Publishers, Boston (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    IEC 61508: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Functional Safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems Part 3 Requirements on Software (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISOWD 26262, Road vehicles, Functional Safety Part 6: Product development software. Working draft (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fenelon, P., McDermid, J.A., Pumfrey, D.J., Nicholson, M.: Towards Integrated Safety Analysis and Design. ACM Computing Reviews 2(1), 21–32 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McDermid, J.A.: Software Hazard and Safety Analysis. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2469, pp. 23–34 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Papadopoulos, Y., et al.: A Method and Tool Support for Model-based Semi-automated Failure Modes and Effects Analysis for Engineering Designs. In: 9th Australian Workshop on Safety Related Programmable Systems (SCS 2004), pp. 89–95. Australian Computer Society (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lutz, R.R., Woodhouse, R.M.: Bi-directional Analysis for Certification of Safety-Critical Software. In: The proceedings of the International Software Assurance Certification Conference (ISACC 1999), pp. 1–9. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pumfrey, D.J.: The Principled Design of Computer System Safety Analysis. PhD thesis. Department of Computer Science, University of York, UK (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chudleigh, M.: Hazard analysis using HAZOP: A case study. In: 12th International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security (SAFECOMP 1993), pp. 99–108. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Redmill, F., Chudleigh, M., Catmur, J.: System Safety: HAZOP and Software HAZOP, p. 248. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lisagor, O., et al.: Safety Analysis of Software Architectures – Lightweight PSSA. In: The proceedings of the 22nd International System Safety Conference (ISSC 2004). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reese, J.D., Leveson, N.G.: Software Deviation Analysis. In: 19th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 250–260. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Papadoupoulos, Y., et al.: Hierarchically Performed Hazard Origin and Propagation Studies. In: Felici, M., Kanoun, K., Pasquini, A. (eds.) SAFECOMP 1999. LNCS, vol. 1698, pp. 139–152. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Papadopoulos, Y., et al.: Automating the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis of Safety Critical Systems. In: The proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on High Assurance Systems Engineering (HASE 2004), pp. 310–311 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rodriguez-Dapena, R.: Software safety verification in critical software intensive systems. Phd Thesis, Eindhoven Technical University, University Printing Office (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Denger
    • 1
  • Mario Trapp
    • 1
  • Peter Liggesmeyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute Experimental Software EngineeringKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations