Using a Software Safety Argument Pattern Catalogue: Two Case Studies
Software safety cases encourage developers to carry out only those safety activities that actually reduce risk. In practice this is not always achieved. To help remedy this, the SSEI at the University of York has developed a set of software safety argument patterns. This paper reports on using the patterns in two real-world case studies, evaluating the patterns’ use against criteria that includes flexibility, ability to reveal assurance decits and ability to focus the case on software contributions to hazards. The case studies demonstrated that the safety patterns can be applied to a range of system types regardless of the stage or type of development process, that they help limit safety case activities to those that are significant for achieving safety, and that they help developers nd assurance deficits in their safety case arguments. The case study reports discuss the difficulties of applying the patterns, particularly in the case of users who are unfamiliar with the approach, and the authors recognise in response the need for better instructional material. But the results show that as part of the development of best practice in safety, the patterns promise signicant benets to industrial safety case creators.
KeywordsUnmanned Aerial Vehicle Inertial Measurement Unit Safety Requirement Safety Property Fault Tree Analysis
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Hawkins, R., Kelly, T.: A Systematic Approach for Developing Software Safety Arguments. In: Proceedings of the 27th International System Safety Conference, Huntsville, AL (2009)Google Scholar
- 2.Menon C., Hawkins R., McDermid J.: Interim standard of best practice on software in the context of DS 00-56 Issue 4. Technical Report SSEI-BP-000001. Software Systems Engineering Initiative, York (2009), https://ssei.org.uk/documents/
- 3.Weaver, R.A.: The safety of Software - Constructing and Assuring Arguments. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, The University of York (2003)Google Scholar
- 4.Kelly, T.: Arguing Safety - A Systematic Approach to Managing Safety Cases. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, The University of York (1998)Google Scholar
- 5.Ye, F.: Justifying the Use of COTS Components within Safety Critical Applications. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, The University of York (2005)Google Scholar
- 7.Hawkins, R., Kelly, T., Knight, J., Graydon, P.: A New Approach to Creating Clear Safety Arguments. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Safety-Critical Systems Symposium (SSS 2011), Southampton (2011)Google Scholar
- 8.Jaffe, M., Busser, R., Daniels, D., Delseny, H., Romanski, G.: Progress Report on Some Proposed Upgrades to the Conceptual Underpinnings of DO178B/ED-12B. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IET International Conference on System Safety (2008)Google Scholar
- 9.Systems Engineering for Autonomous Systems (SEAS) Defence Technology Centre (DTC) http://www.seasdtc.com/
- 10.Bardo B.: Autonomous Systems — A New Partnership Between Man and Machine. Presentation to SEAS DTC (2010), http://www.innovate10.co.uk/uploads/BillBardo-theSEASDTC.pdf
- 11.Alexander, R., Herbert, N., et al.: Deriving Safety Requirements for Autonomous Systems. In: Proceedings of the 4th SEAS DTC Technical Conference, Edinburgh (2009)Google Scholar
- 12.Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-Oriented Requirements Enginering: A Roundtrip from Research to Practice. In: Proceedings of the Requirements Engineering Conference, 12th IEEE International (2004)Google Scholar