Investigating the Use of Argument Modularity to Optimise Through-life System Safety Assurance
نویسندگان
چکیده
Safety cases are now regularly used to communicate the argument about the achievement of acceptable levels of safety for safety critical systems. Increasingly, safety standards such as Defence Standard 00-56 require the scope of the safety case to cover not only the development of the system, but also operating and maintenance through life, including decommissioning. This involves two dimensions of safety case management: safety case development and safety case maintenance. The development of modular safety cases is considered to address to some extend a number of challenges during development and maintenance. In modular safety cases, the safety case argument and evidence is organised into separate but interrelated and cross-referenced modules. However, the adoption of modular safety case development approach is not a panacea. Alongside the advantages listed, modular safety cases can bring a number of new challenges that need to be taken into account. This paper discusses some of these difficulties, together with suggested mitigation strategies.
منابع مشابه
A Safety Argument Strategy for PCA Closed-Loop Systems: A Preliminary Proposal
The emerging network-enabled medical devices impose new challenges for the safety assurance of medical cyber-physical systems (MCPS). In this paper, we present a case study of building a high-level safety argument for a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) closed-loop system, with the purpose of exploring potential methodologies for assuring the safety of MCPS. 1998 ACM Subject Classification D.2...
متن کاملA Systematic Approach for Developing Software Safety Arguments
It is becoming increasingly common to develop safety arguments (also called assurance arguments) to demonstrate that the software aspects of a system are acceptably safe to operate. A software safety argument enables a compelling justification of the sufficiency of the software to be provided, whilst also giving the software developer flexibility to adopt the development approach that is most a...
متن کاملINVESTIGATING THE VALIDITY OF PHD ENTRANCE EXAM OF ELT IN IRAN IN LIGHT OF ARGUMENT-BASED VALIDITY AND THEORY OF ACTION
Although some piecemeal efforts have been made to investigate the validity and use of the Iranian PhD exam, no systematic project has been specifically carried out in this regard. The current study, hence, tried to attend to this void. As such, to ensure a balanced focus on test interpretation and test consequence, and to track evidence derived from a mixed–method study on the validity of Irani...
متن کاملSoftware Safety Assurance – What Is Sufficient?
It is possible to construct a safety argument for the software aspects of a system in order to demonstrate that the software is acceptably safe to operate. In order to be compelling, it is necessary to justify that the arguments and evidence presented for the software provide sufficient safety assurance. In this paper we consider how assurance may be explicitly considered when developing a soft...
متن کاملContract-Based Justification for COTS Component within Safety Critical Applications
Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) software components are being used within complex safety-critical applications. However, to use them with confidence, it is necessary to ensure that potential failures of the COTS component does not contribute to system level hazards. To this end, we have established a contract-based approach to capture the application-specific safety requirements, and correspond...
متن کامل