Advertisement

Reuse in Hazard Analysis: Identification and Support

  • Shamus P. Smith
  • Michael D. Harrison
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2788)

Abstract

This paper investigates the nature of hazard analysis reuse over two case studies. Initially reuse in an existing safety argument is described. Argument structures within the hazard analysis are identified and the amount of verbatim reuse examined. A second study is concerned with how reuse changes as a result of tool support. In contrast to the first case, the defined arguments are more diverse – reuse has occurred but is less verbatim in nature. Tool supported argument adaptation has aided the customisation of the reused arguments.

Keywords

Hazard Analysis Argument Structure Prototype Tool Safety Case Dust Explosion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adelard. Dependability and safety consultants (last access 6/06/03), http://www.adelard.com
  2. 2.
    Alberdi, E., Povyakalo, A., Strigini, L.: Diversity modelling of computer aided diagnosis in breast screening. In: DIRC workshop, London (November 2002); (last access 6/06/03) http://www.csr.city.ac.uk/people/lorenzo.strigini/ls.papers/2003_CADT/
  3. 3.
    Boggis, C.R.M., Astley, S.M.: Computer-assisted mammographic imaging. Breast Cancer Research 2(6), 392–395 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Börner, K.: Structural similarity as guidance in case-based design. In: Wess, S., Richter, M., Althoff, K.-D. (eds.) EWCBR 1993. LNCS, vol. 837, pp. 197–208. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clement, T., Cottam, I., Froome, P., Jones, C.: The development of a commercial shrink-wrapped application to safety integrity level 2: The DUST-EXPERTM story. In: Felici, M., Kanoun, K., Pasquini, A. (eds.) SAFECOMP 1999. LNCS, vol. 1698, pp. 216–225. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dhillon, B.S.: Failure modes and effects analysis – bibliography. Microelectronics and Reliability 32(5), 719–731 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    DIRC. Interdisciplinary research collaboration on dependability of computer-based systems, (last access 6/06/03) http://www.dirc.org.uk
  8. 8.
    Hartswood, M., Proctor, R.: Computer-aided mammography: A case study of error management in a skilled decision-making task. In: Johnson, C. (ed.) Proceedings of the first workshop on Human Error and Clinical Systems (HECS 1999), University of Glasgow (April 1999); Glasgow Accident Analysis Group Technical Report G99–1Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karunanithi, S., Bieman, J.M.: Measuring software reuse in object oriented systems and ada software. Technical Report CS-93-125, Department of Computer Science, Colorado State University (October 1993)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kelly, T.P.: Arguing Safety – A Systematic Approach to Managing Safety Cases. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, The University of York (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kletz, T.: Hazop and Hazan: Identifying and Assessing Process Industrial Hazards, 3rd edn., Institution of Chemical Engineers (1992) ISBN 0-85295-285-6Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pardi, W.J.: XML in Action: Web Technology. IT Professional. Microsoft Press, Redmond (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Plaza, E.: Cases as terms: A feature term approach to the structured representation of cases. In: Aamodt, A., Veloso, M.M. (eds.) ICCBR 1995. LNCS, vol. 1010, pp. 265–276. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pocock, S., Harrison, M., Wright, P., Johnson, P.: THEA – a technique for human error assessment early in design. In: Hirose, M. (ed.) Human-Computer Interaction: INTERACT 2001, pp. 247–254. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pumfrey, D.J.: The Principled Design of Computer System Safety Analysis. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, The University of York (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smith, S.P., Harrison, M.D.: Improving hazard classification through the reuse of descriptive arguments. In: Gacek, C. (ed.) ICSR 2002. LNCS, vol. 2319, pp. 255–268. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith, S.P., Harrison, M.D.: Supporting reuse in hazard analysis. In: DIRC workshop, London (November 2002) (last access 6/06/03), http://www.cs.york.ac.york/~shamus/papers/smithdirc02.pdf
  18. 18.
    Zheng, B., Shah, R., Wallance, L., Hakim, C., Ganott, M.A., Gur, D.: Computer-aided detection in mammography: An assessment of performance on current and prior images. Academic Radiology 9(11), 1245–1250 (2002), AURGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shamus P. Smith
    • 1
  • Michael D. Harrison
    • 1
  1. 1.The Dependability Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of YorkYorkUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations