Advertisement

Extending Failure Modes and Effects Analysis Approach for Reliability Analysis at the Software Architecture Design Level

  • Hasan Sozer
  • Bedir Tekinerdogan
  • Mehmet Aksit
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4615)

Abstract

Several reliability engineering approaches have been proposed to identify and recover from failures. A well-known and mature approach is the Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) method that is usually utilized together with Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) to analyze and diagnose the causes of failures. Unfortunately, both approaches seem to have primarily focused on failures of hardware components and less on software components. Moreover, for utilizing FMEA and FTA very often an existing implementation of the system is required to perform the reliability analysis. We propose extensions to FMEA and FTA to utilize them for the reliability analysis of software at the architecture design level. We present the software architecture reliability analysis approach (SARAH) that incorporates the extended FMEA and FTA. The approach is illustrated using an industrial case for analyzing reliability of the software architecture of a Digital TV.

Keywords

reliability analysis FMEA FTA software architecture evaluation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arrango, G.: Domain Analysis Methods. In: Schafer, R., Prieto-Diaz, R., Matsumoto, M. (eds.) Software Reusability, pp. 17–49. Ellis Horwood, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Avizienis, A., Laprie, J.-C., Randell, B., Landwehr, C.: Basic Concepts and Taxonomy of Dependable and Secure Computing. IEEE Trans. on Dependable and Secure Computing 1(1), 11–33 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bachman, F., Bass, L., Klein, M.: Deriving Architectural Tactics: A Step Toward Methodical Architectural Design. CMU/SEI-2003-TR-004, Pittsburgh, PA (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clements, P., Bachman, F., Bass, L., Garlan, D., Ivers, J., Little, R., Nord, R., Stafford, J.: Documenting Software Architectures. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dobrica, L., Niemela, E.: A Survey on Software Architecture Analysis Methods. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 28(7), 638–654 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dugan, J.B.: Software System Analysis Using Fault Trees. In: Lyu, M.R. (ed.) Handbook of Software Reliability Engineering, vol. 15, pp. 615–659. McGraw-Hill, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dugan, J.B., Lyu, M.R.: Dependability Modeling for Fault-Tolerant Software and Systems. In: Lyu, M.R. (ed.) Software Fault Tolerance, vol. 5, pp. 109–138. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eubanks, C.F., Kmenta, S., Ishil, K.: Advanced Failure Modes and Effects Analysis using Behavior Modeling. In: Proceedings of the ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gorbenko, A., Kharchenko, V., Tarasyuk, O.: FMEA- technique of Web Services Analysis and Dependability Ensuring. In: Butler, M., Jones, C., Romanovsky, A., Troubitsyna, E. (eds.) Rigorous Development of Complex Fault-Tolerant Systems. LNCS, vol. 4157, pp. 153–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Isaksen, U., Bowen, J.P., Nissanke, N.: System and Software Safety in Critical Systems. Technical Report RUCS/97/TR/062/A, The University of Reading, UK (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leveson, N.G., Cha, S.S., Shimeall, T.J.: Safety Verification of Ada Programs using Software Fault Trees. IEEE Software 8(4), 48–59 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    MIL-STD-1629A: Procedures for Performing a Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis. Department of Defense, Washington, DC (1980)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Papadopoulos, Y., Parker, D., Grante, C.: Automating the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis of Safety Critical Systems. In: Proceedings of HASE 2004, FL, pp. 310–311 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Redmill, F.: Exploring Subjectivity in Hazard Analysis. Engineering Management Journal (IEE) 12(3) (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Redmill, F., Chudleigh, M., Catmur, J.: System Safety: HAZOP and Software HAZOP. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reifer, D.J.: Software Failure Modes and Effects Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Reliability R-28(3), 247–249 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roland, E., Moriarty, B.: Failure Mode and Effects Analysis. In: System Safety Engineering and Management, 2nd edn., John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1990)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosenberg, D., Scott, K.: Use Case Driven Object Modeling with UML: A Practical Approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Trader project web site (2006), http://www.esi.nl/site/projects/trader
  20. 20.
    Wallace, M.: Modular Architectural Representation and Analysis of Fault Propagation and Transformation. In: Proceedings of FESCA, ENTCS vol. 141(3) (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yakoub, S., Cukic, B., Ammar, H.: Scenario-based Reliability Analysis of Component Based Software. In: Proceedings of ISSRE 1999, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 22–31 (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhou, J., Stalhane, T.: Using FMEA for early robustness analysis of Web-based systems. In: Proceedings of COMPSAC 2004, Washington, DC, pp. 28–29 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hasan Sozer
    • 1
  • Bedir Tekinerdogan
    • 1
  • Mehmet Aksit
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217 7500 AE EnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations