Skip to main content

Distinguishing Fact from Fiction in a System of Systems Safety Case

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Systems Safety

Abstract

Based on our recent experience, ‘distinguishing fact from fiction’ in relation to System of Systems (SoS) safety has emerged as a pertinent topic in a number of senses. From an analytical perspective, we recognise that it would be a mistake to treat a SoS as ‘just another complex system’. The defining properties of a SoS mean that traditional analysis methods may fall short if applied without additional support. On the other hand, we also argue that the structured and comprehensive analysis of a SoS need not be so complex as to be impractical.

We draw on an internal BAE Systems development project, Integrated Aircrew Training (IAT), as an exemplar. IAT interconnects multiple systems and participants – air and ground assets – into a training SoS. As would be expected we have identified a number of sources of complexity in the analysis of this SoS, chiefly the exponential impact of interactions among increasing numbers of system elements on analysis complexity. However, the training domain provides constraints which may be captured as feature models to structure the analysis.

We outline a SoS hazard assessment process and associated safety case approach that are the subject of ongoing research and development and as such, are not yet formally recognised. They acknowledge that the presence of human decision-makers in a SoS means that human factors analysis contributes significantly to SoS safety assessment. We discuss the human element in SoS safety analysis and show how its treatment in the case of IAT has caused us to recognise that augmented-reality training brings with it both novel sources and consequences of human ‘error’. In this particular SoS, the ‘fact versus fiction’ differential also applies to SoS users and the notion of participant ‘immersion’ is a key area of interest.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Agarwal R, Karahanna E (2000) Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly 24:665-694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander RD (2007) Using simulation for systems of systems safety analysis. PhD Thesis, University of York

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander R, Hall-May M, Kelly T (2004) Characterisation of systems of systems failures. Proceedings of the 22nd International System Safety Conference (ISSC '04)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayer J, Flege O, Knauber P et al (1999) PuLSE: a methodology to develop software product lines. Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Software Reusability

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown E, Cairns P (2004) A grounded investigation of game immersion. Proc CHI. ACM Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi M (1990) Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. Harper and Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Czarnecki K, Eisenecker U (2000) Generative programming. Addison-Wesley, Reading MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dehlinger J, Lutz RR (2005) Software fault tree analysis for product lines. Proceedings Eighth IEEE International Symposium on High Assurance System Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker S (2002) The field guide to human error investigations. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Despotou G, Kelly T (2008) Investigating the use of argument modularity to optimise through-life system safety assurance. Proc 3rd IET Int Conf on System Safety (ICSS). IET

    Google Scholar 

  • Despotou G, Kelly T (2010) Understanding the safety lifecycle of systems of systems. To appear in: Proc 28th International System Safety Conference (ISSC), Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Despotou G, Bennett M, Kelly T (2009) Supporting through life safety assurance of COTS based upgrades. Proc 27th International System Safety Conference (ISSC), System Safety Society

    Google Scholar 

  • Habli IM (2009) Model-based assurance of safety-critical product lines. PhD Thesis, University of York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E (1998) Cognitive reliability and error analysis method (CREAM). Elsevier, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang KC, Cohen S, Hess J et al (1990) Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Technical report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21

    Google Scholar 

  • Kletz T (1992) HAZOP and HAZAN: identifying and assessing process industry hazards. Hemi-sphere Publishing Corporation, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Leveson N, Dulac N (2005) Safety and risk-driven design in complex systems-of-systems. 1st NASA/AIAA Space Exploration Conference

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier M W (1998) Architecting principles for system of systems. Syst Eng 1:267-284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raheja D, Moriarty B (2006) New paradigms in system safety. J Syst Saf 42(6)

    Google Scholar 

  • SAE (1996) ARP-4761 Aerospace recommended practice: guidelines and methods for conducting the safety assessment process on civil airborne systems and equipment, 12th edn. Society of Automotive Engineers

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson Z, de Souza S, McDermid J (2004) Product line analysis and the system safety process. Proceedings of the International System Safety Conference

    Google Scholar 

  • Villemeur A (1992) Reliability, availability maintainability and safety assessment. John Wiley and Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace M (2005) Modular architectural representation and analysis of fault propagation and transformation. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 141(3)

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss DM, Lai CTR (1999) Software product-line engineering: a family-based software development process. Addison-Wesley, Reading MA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this paper

Cite this paper

Stephenson, Z., Fairburn, C., Despotou, G., Kelly, T., Herbert, N., Daughtrey, B. (2011). Distinguishing Fact from Fiction in a System of Systems Safety Case. In: Dale, C., Anderson, T. (eds) Advances in Systems Safety. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-133-2_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-133-2_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-85729-132-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-85729-133-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics