Advertisement

Making Software Safety Assessable and Transparent

  • Risto Nevalainen
  • Alejandra Ruiz
  • Timo Varkoi
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 364)

Abstract

Most formal assessment and evaluation techniques and standards assume that software can be analysed like any physical item. In safety-critical systems, software is an important component providing functionality. Often it is also the most difficult component to assess. Balanced use of process assessment and product evaluation methods is needed, because lack of transparency in software must be compensated with a more formal development process. Safety case is an effective approach to demonstrate safety, and then both process and product are necessary evidence types. Safety is also a likely candidate to be approached as a process quality characteristic. Here we present a tentative set of process quality attributes that support achievement of safety requirements of a software product.

Keywords

software process process assessment software safety 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Leveson, N.G.: Engineering A Safer World: Systems Thinking Applied to Safety. MIT (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Varkoi, T.: Safety as a Process Quality Characteristic. In: Proceedings of SPICE 2013 Conference (accepted for publication, 2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ISO/IEC 25010:2011, Systems and software engineering–Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)–System and software quality models (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    IEC 61508-3 Ed. 2.0, Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems – Part 3: Software requirements (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ISO/IEC 15504-5:2006, Information technology – Process assessment – Part 5: An exemplar Process Assessment Model (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO/IEC 33001 DIS, Information technology – Process assessment – Concepts and terminology. ISO/IEC (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    FiSMA 2011-1: S4N Method Description - Nuclear SPICE PRM and PAM. FiSMA (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    IEC 61508-7 Ed. 2.0, Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems – Part 7: Overview of techniques and measures (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISO 26262, Road vehicles – Functional safety, ISO (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Inge, J.R.: The Safety Case: Its development and use in the United Kingdom. In: Equipment Safety Assurance Symposium, Bristol, UK (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnson, C.W., Robins, D.A.: Myths and barriers to the introduction of safety cases in space-based systems. In: 29th International Systems Safety Society, Las Vegas, USA (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rasche, T.: Development of a safety case methodology for the Minerals Industry – a discussion paper. Minerals Industry Safety and Health Center (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stensrud, E., Skramstad, T., Li, J., Xie, J.: Towards Goal-Based Software Safety Certification Based on Prescriptive Standards. In: First International Workshop on Software Certification, WoSoCER (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weaver, R.A., McDermid, J.A., Kelly, T.P.: Software Safety Arguments: Towards a Systematic Categorisation of Evidence. In: Proceedings of the 20th International System Safety Conference (ISSC), System Safety Society, Denver (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Flood, M., Habli, I.: Multi-Viewpoint Safety Cases. In: Proceedings of the 6th IET International System Safety Conference, Birmingham, United Kingdom (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kelly, T.: Arguing Safety - A Systematic Approach to Managing Safety Cases. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, The University of York (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Risto Nevalainen
    • 1
  • Alejandra Ruiz
    • 2
  • Timo Varkoi
    • 3
  1. 1.Spinet OyFinland
  2. 2.TecnaliaSpain
  3. 3.Finnish Software Measurement Association – FiSMA ryFinland

Personalised recommendations