The Agile Safety Case

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9923)

Abstract

During the last years, there has been an increasing use of agile development methods when developing safety-critical software in order to shorten the time to market, to reduce costs and to improve quality. The Agile Safety Case forces the applicant to be specific about the quality and safety process together with technical safety aspects, enabling the certification process to be done in parallel with development and enabling the certification body to evaluate the current information at any time in the project. Moving from a waterfall/V-model to an agile model affect several parts of the safety case. Only a few international safety standards, like e.g. EN 5129 (Railway) and ISO 26262 (Automotive), require a safety case to be developed. In the future, we expect that more safety standards will include a safety case approach. The railway safety standard EN 50129 does include a list of topics that can be included in safety cases even for other domains.

Keywords

Safety case Agile SafeScrum 

References

  1. 1.
    Nair, S., de la Vara, J.L., Sabetzadeh, M., Briand, L.: An extended systematic literature review on provision of evidence for safety certification. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56, 689–717 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Feather, M.S., Markosian, L.Z.: Building a safety case for a safety-critical NASA space vehicle software system. In: 2011 Fourth IEEE International Conference on Space Mission Challenges for Information Technology (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Denney, E., Pai, G., Habli, I.: Perspectives on software safety case development for unmanned aircraft. In: 42nd Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN 2012), Boston, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Agacdiken, N. et al.: EAD Safety Case, EuroControl, September 2009Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weinstock, C.B., Goodenough, J.B.: Towards an Assurance Case Practice for Medical Devices. Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, October 2009Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kelly, T., Bate, I., McDermid, J., Burns, A.: Building a preliminary safety case: an example from aerospace. In: Proceedings of the 1997 Australian Workshop on Industrial Experience with Safety Critical Systems and Software. Australian Computer Society, Sydney, October 1997Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greenwell, W.S., Knight, J.C.: Framing analysis of software failure with safety cases. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 33(5), 347–365 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaur, R., Sabetzadeh, M., Briand, L., Coq, T.: Characterizing the chain of evidence for software safety cases: a conceptual model based on the IEC 61508 standard. In: Third IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST) (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Braun, P., Philipps, J. Schatz, B., Wagner, S.: Model-based safety-cases for software-intensive systems. In: SafeCert (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sun, L., Zhang, W., Kelly, T.: Do safety cases have a role in aircraft certification? In: The 2nd International Symposium on Aircraft Airworthiness (ISAA 2011) (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weaver, R.A.: The Safety of Software – Constructing and Assuring Arguments University of York. Department of Computer Science, September 2003Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Agusta Westland Limited, BAE SYSTEMS, GE Aviation, General Dynamics United Kingdom Limited, and SELEX Galileo Ltd.: Modular Software Safety Case Process. Description Date: 19 November 2012Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Denney, E., Pai, G.: Towards an Ontological Basis for Aviation Safety Cases. SGT/NASA Ames Research CenterGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Holloway, C.M.: Safety case notations: alternatives for the non-graphically inclined? In: Johnson, C.W., Casely, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the IET 3rd International Conference on System Safety. IET Press, London (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leveson, N.: The use of safety cases in certification and regulation. J. Syst. Saf. 47(6) (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Myklebust, T., Stålhane, T., Hanssen, G.K., Wien, T., Haugset, B.: Scrum, documentation and the IEC 61508-3:2010 software standard. In: PSAM 12, Hawaii (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Myklebust, T., Stålhane, T., Hanssen, G.K., Haugset, B.: Change Impact Analysis as required by safety standards, what to do? In: PSAM 12, Hawaii (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ge, X., Paige, R.F., McDermid, J.A.: An iterative approach for development of safety-critical software and safety arguments. In: AGILE 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Myklebust, T., Stålhane, T., Hanssen, G.K.: Important considerations when applying other models than the Waterfall/V-model when developing software according to IEC 61508 or EN 50128. ISSC 2015, San Diego, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stålhane, T., Myklebust, T.: Early Safety Analysis, XP 2016, Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NTNUTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.SINTEF ICTTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations