Abstract
In this paper, we propose a negative scenario framework along with a mitigation action model as the linkage between safety quality attribute and architecture definition. The scenario framework provides an effective means of formulating safety concerns. The mitigation action model facilitates exploitation and codification of existing safety-critical system design knowledge. Finally, we present a series of steps that enable the justification of architectural design decisions that refine both requirements and architectures. We demonstrate and discuss the application of our framework by means of a case study.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ARP 4761: Guidelines and Methods for Conducting the Safety Assessment Process on Civil Airborne Systems and Equipment. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (1996)
IEC 61508 – Functional Safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-Related Systems. International Electrotechnical Commission (1998)
The United Modelling Language Specification 1.5. Object Management Group, http://www.uml.org
Alexander, I.: Misuse Cases: Use Cases with Hostile Intent. IEEE Software 20(1), 58–66 (2003)
Bachmann, F., Bass, L., Klein, M.: Deriving Architectural Tactics: A Step toward Methodical Architectural Design. Tech. Report. CMU/SEI-2003-TR-004. SEI (2003)
Bass, L., Clements, P., Kazman, R.: Software Architecture in Practice, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)
Buhr, R.J.A., Casselman, R.S.: Use Case Maps for Object-Oriented Systems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1996)
Burns, A., Lister, A.: A Framework for Building Dependable Systems. The Computer Journal 34(2), 173–181 (1991)
Douglass, B.P.: Doing Hard Time: Developing Real-Time Systems with UML, Objects, Frameworks, and Patterns. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)
Feather, M.S., Cornford, S.L.: Quantitative Risk-Based Requirements Reasoning. Requirements Engineering 8(4), 248–265 (2003)
Kruchten, P.: The 4+1 View Model of Architecture. IEEE Software 12(6), 42–50 (1995)
Leveson, N.G.: Safeware: System Safety and Computers. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)
Lions, J.L.: ARIANE 5: Flight 501 Failure. Inquiry Board report. Paris (1996)
Nuseibeh, B.: Weaving Together Requirements and Architectures. IEEE Computer 34(3), 114–115 (2001)
Ramesh, B., Dhar, V.: Supporting systems development by capturing deliberations during requirements engineering. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 18(6), 498–510 (1992)
Rozanski, N., Woods, E.: Software Systems Architecture. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2005)
Sosa, E., Tooley, M. (eds.): Causation. Oxford University Press, New York (1993)
Wu, W., Kelly, T.: Safety Tactics for Software Architecture Design. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC 2004), pp. 368–375. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)
Wu, W., Kelly, T.: Failure Modelling in Software Architecture Design for Safety. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 30(4), 1–7 (2005)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Wu, W., Kelly, T. (2006). Managing Architectural Design Decisions for Safety-Critical Software Systems. In: Hofmeister, C., Crnkovic, I., Reussner, R. (eds) Quality of Software Architectures. QoSA 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4214. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11921998_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11921998_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-48819-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48820-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)