SafeConcert: A Metamodel for a Concerted Safety Modeling of Socio-Technical Systems

  • Leonardo MontecchiEmail author
  • Barbara Gallina
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10437)


Socio-technical systems are characterized by the interplay of heterogeneous entities i.e., humans, organizations, and technologies. Application domains such as petroleum, e-health, and many others rely on solutions based on safety-critical socio-technical systems. To ensure a safe operation of these interacting heterogeneous entities, multifaceted and integrated modeling and analysis capabilities are needed. Currently, such capabilities are not at disposal. To contribute to the provision of such capabilities, in this paper we propose SafeConcert, a metamodel that offers constructs to model socio-technical entities and their safety-related properties. SafeConcert also represents a unified and harmonized language that supports the integrated application of qualitative as well as quantitative safety analyses techniques. To support our claims we briefly report about the evaluation that was conducted and documented in the context of the EU CONCERTO project.


Safety-critical Socio-technical systems Modeling Safety analysis 



This work has been partially supported by the EU ARTEMIS project CONCERTO [2], and by the ECSEL Joint Undertaking project AMASS (No 692474).


  1. 1.
    ARTEMIS-JU-100022 CHESS: Composition with Guarantees for High-Integrity Embedded Software Components Assembly.
  2. 2.
    ARTEMIS-JU-333053 CONCERTO: Guaranteed Component Assembly with Round Trip Analysis for Energy Efficient High-integrity Multicore Systems.
  3. 3.
    Gallina, B., Sefer, E., Refsdal, A.: Towards safety risk assessment of socio-technical systems via failure logic analysis. In: 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops (ISSREW), 3–6 November 2014, pp. 287–292 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wallace, M.: Modular architectural representation and analysis of fault propagation and transformation. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 141(3), 53–71 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    PolarSys CHESS. Accessed 01 June 2017
  6. 6.
    Society of Automotive Engineers: SAE Standards: AS5506/1, Architecture Analysis & Design Language (AADL) Annex Volume 1, June 2006Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bernardi, S., Merseguer, J., Petriu, D.C.: A dependability profile within MARTE. Softw. Syst. Model. 10(3), 313–336 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ATESST consortium: EAST-ADL2 UML2 Profile Specification, January 2008Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Walker, G., Stanton, N., Salmon, P., Jenkins, D.: A Review of Sociotechnical Systems Theory: A Classic Concept for New Command and Control Paradigms, Human Factors Integration Defence Technology Centre, U.K. Ministry of Defence Scientific Research Programme, HFIDTC/2/WP1.1.1/2 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Montecchi, L., Lollini, P., Bondavalli, A.: A reusable modular toolchain for automated dependability evaluation. In: VALUETOOLS 2013, Torino, Italy, pp. 298–303, December 2013Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lisagor, O.: Failure logic modelling: a pragmatic approach. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of York, March 2010Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rugina, A.-E., Kanoun, K., Kaâniche, M.: A system dependability modeling framework using AADL and GSPNs. In: Lemos, R., Gacek, C., Romanovsky, A. (eds.) WADS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4615, pp. 14–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-74035-3_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Avižienis, A., Laprie, J.-C., Randell, B., Landwehr, C.: Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secure Comput. 1, 11–33 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grunske, L., Han, J.: A comparative study into architecture-based safety evaluation methodologies using AADL’s error annex and failure propagation models. In: 11th IEEE High Assurance Systems Engineering Symposium, Nanjing, China, pp. 283–292, 3–5 December 2008Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Verhulst, E., de la Vara, J.L., Sputh, B.H., de Florio, V.: ARRL: a criterion for composable safety and systems engineering. In: SAFECOMP 2013 Workshops – SASSUR 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO26262: Road vehicles – Functional safety. International Standard, November 2011Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    de C. Guerra, P.A., Rubira, C.M.F., Romanovsky, A., Lemos, R.: A fault-tolerant software architecture for COTS-based software systems. In: Proceedings of the 9th European Software Engineering Conference, pp. 375–378. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hendy, K.C.: A tool for Human Factors Accident Investigation, Classification and Risk Management. Defence R&D Canada, Toronto, DRDC Toronto TR 2002–057, March 2003Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Montecchi, L., Lollini, P., Bondavalli, A.: Towards a MDE transformation workflow for dependability analysis. In: IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, Las Vegas, USA, pp. 157–166 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sljivo, I., Gallina, B., Carlson, J., Hansson, H., Puri, S.: A method to generate reusable safety case argument-fragments from compositional safety analysis. J. Syst. Softw. (2016). Special Issue on Software Reuse
  21. 21.
    Montecchi, L., Gallina, B.: Complete diagram of the SafeConcert metamodel. Accessed 01 June 2017
  22. 22.
    DO-331, Model-Based Development and Verification Supplement to DO-178C and DO-278A. RTCA, December 2011Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    CONCERTO Deliverable D2.7: Analysis and back-propagation of properties for multicore systems – Final Version, November 2015Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    CONCERTO Deliverable D5.6: Use Case Evaluations – Final Version, April 2016Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    CONCERTO Deliverable D3.3: Design and implementation of analysis methods for non-functional properties – Final version, November 2015Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gallina, B., Punnekkat, S.: FI4FA: a formalism for incompletion, inconsistency, interference and impermanence failures’ analysis. In: 37th EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA 2011), pp. 493–500, 30 August–2 September 2011Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Montecchi, L., Refsdal, A., Lollini, P., Bondavalli, A.: A model-based approach to support safety-related decisions in the petroleum domain. In: 46th IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN 2016), Toulouse, France, pp. 275–286, 28 June–1 July 2016Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bondavalli, A., Bouchenak, S., Kopetz, H. (eds.): Cyber-Physical Systems of Systems – Foundations – A Conceptual Model and Some Derivations: The AMADEOS Legacy. LNCS, vol. 10099. (2016)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ciardo, G., German, R., Lindemann, C.: A characterization of the stochastic process underlying a stochastic petri net. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 20, 506–515 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Holden, R.J.: People or systems? To blame is human. The fix is to engineer. Prof. Saf. 54(12), 34–41 (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gallina, B., Javed, M.A., Ul Muram, F., Punnekkat, S.: Model-driven Dependability Analysis Method for Component-based Architectures. In: Proceedings of the Euromicro-SEAA Conference, Cesme, Izmir, Turkey, September 2012Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Biggs, G., Sakamoto, T., Kotoku, T.: A profile and tool for modelling safety information with design information in SysML. Softw. Syst. Model. 15(1), 147–178 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gallina, B., Dimov, A., Punnekkat, S.: Fuzzy-enabled failure behaviour analysis for dependability assessment of networked systems. In: IEEE International Workshop on Measurement and Networking (M&N), Anacapri, Italy, p. 6, August 2011Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of FlorenceFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.University of CampinasCampinasBrazil
  3. 3.Mälardalen UniversityVästeråsSweden

Personalised recommendations