Managing Architectural Design Decisions for Safety-Critical Software Systems

  • Weihang Wu
  • Tim Kelly
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4214)


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.


Quality Attribute Mitigation Action Design Knowledge Misuse Case Context View 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    ARP 4761: Guidelines and Methods for Conducting the Safety Assessment Process on Civil Airborne Systems and Equipment. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (1996) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    IEC 61508 – Functional Safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-Related Systems. International Electrotechnical Commission (1998) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The United Modelling Language Specification 1.5. Object Management Group,
  4. 4.
    Alexander, I.: Misuse Cases: Use Cases with Hostile Intent. IEEE Software 20(1), 58–66 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bachmann, F., Bass, L., Klein, M.: Deriving Architectural Tactics: A Step toward Methodical Architectural Design. Tech. Report. CMU/SEI-2003-TR-004. SEI (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bass, L., Clements, P., Kazman, R.: Software Architecture in Practice, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buhr, R.J.A., Casselman, R.S.: Use Case Maps for Object-Oriented Systems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1996)MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burns, A., Lister, A.: A Framework for Building Dependable Systems. The Computer Journal 34(2), 173–181 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Douglass, B.P.: Doing Hard Time: Developing Real-Time Systems with UML, Objects, Frameworks, and Patterns. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feather, M.S., Cornford, S.L.: Quantitative Risk-Based Requirements Reasoning. Requirements Engineering 8(4), 248–265 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kruchten, P.: The 4+1 View Model of Architecture. IEEE Software 12(6), 42–50 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leveson, N.G.: Safeware: System Safety and Computers. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lions, J.L.: ARIANE 5: Flight 501 Failure. Inquiry Board report. Paris (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nuseibeh, B.: Weaving Together Requirements and Architectures. IEEE Computer 34(3), 114–115 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ramesh, B., Dhar, V.: Supporting systems development by capturing deliberations during requirements engineering. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 18(6), 498–510 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rozanski, N., Woods, E.: Software Systems Architecture. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sosa, E., Tooley, M. (eds.): Causation. Oxford University Press, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wu, W., Kelly, T.: Failure Modelling in Software Architecture Design for Safety. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 30(4), 1–7 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Weihang Wu
    • 1
  • Tim Kelly
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of YorkYork

Personalised recommendations