Many current safety certification standards are process-based, i.e. they prescribe a set of development techniques and methods. This is perhaps best exemplified by the use of Safety Integrity Levels (SILs), e.g. as defined by IEC 61508 and UK Defence Standard 00-55. SILs are defined according to the level of the risk posed by a system, and hence prescribe the tools, techniques and methods that should be adopted by the development and assessment lifecycle. Product-based certification relies on the generation and assurance of product-specific evidence that meets safety requirements derived from hazard analysis. This evidence can be used as the argument basis in a safety case. However, uncertainty about the provenance of evidence in such a safety case can undermine confidence. To address this problem, we argue that process arguments remain an essential element of any safety case. However, unlike the sweeping process-based integrity arguments of the past, we suggest instead that highly directed process arguments should be linked to the items of evidence used in the product case. Such arguments can address issues of tool integrity, competency of personnel, and configuration management. Much as deductive software safety arguments are desirable, there will always be inductive elements. Process-based arguments of the type we suggest address partly this problem by tackling the otherwise implicit assumptions underlying certification evidence.
End of preview. The entire article is 8 pages. To view the full-text, please rent this article to continue.
/lp/association-for-computing-machinery/process-and-product-certification-arguments-getting-the-balance-right-0Mv9TQarh4
Welcome to DeepDyve! Rent Premier Research Articles and Save Up to 90%
Process and product certification arguments: getting the balance right
Habli, Ibrahim; Kelly, Tim
Follow ACM SIGBED Review
, Volume 3 (4)
Association for Computing Machinery – Oct 1, 2006
More Info
More Like This Article
View All dataSource[]=actageo&dataSource[]=aspet&dataSource[]=aaos&dataSource[]=aacc&dataSource[]=aacr&dataSource[]=aea&dataSource[]=aip&dataSource[]=ajnr&dataSource[]=ams&dataSource[]=aps_physical&dataSource[]=appi_book&dataSource[]=appi_journal&dataSource[]=apha&dataSource[]=asip&dataSource[]=asm&dataSource[]=asn&dataSource[]=aspb&dataSource[]=avs&dataSource[]=annual_reviews&dataSource[]=arxiv&dataSource[]=acm&dataSource[]=berghahn&dataSource[]=cabi&dataSource[]=clinical_trials&dataSource[]=dailymed&dataSource[]=degruyter&dataSource[]=du_press&dataSource[]=esa&dataSource[]=eu_press&dataSource[]=elsevier&dataSource[]=emerald&dataSource[]=ejtr&dataSource[]=emea&dataSource[]=epo&dataSource[]=faseb&dataSource[]=gsa&dataSource[]=health_affairs&dataSource[]=hindawi&dataSource[]=imanager&dataSource[]=imedpub&dataSource[]=informa_healthcare&dataSource[]=informs&dataSource[]=iop&dataSource[]=iucr&dataSource[]=iospress&dataSource[]=jbjs&dataSource[]=leftcoast&dataSource[]=lu_press&dataSource[]=mesharpe&dataSource[]=mary_ann_liebert&dataSource[]=medline&dataSource[]=mit_press&dataSource[]=nature&dataSource[]=oxford&dataSource[]=pier_professional&dataSource[]=pnas&dataSource[]=portlandpress&dataSource[]=psyc_articles&dataSource[]=psyc_books&dataSource[]=psyc_critiques&dataSource[]=plos_journal&dataSource[]=pubmed_central&dataSource[]=rsna&dataSource[]=rockefeller&dataSource[]=rcn&dataSource[]=ria&dataSource[]=rsc&dataSource[]=sage&dataSource[]=spie&dataSource[]=springer_journal&dataSource[]=springer&dataSource[]=taylor_francis&dataSource[]=aps&dataSource[]=the_scientist&dataSource[]=uc_press&dataSource[]=uspto_abstract&dataSource[]=wiley&dataSource[]=pct
© 2012 DeepDyve, Inc. All rights reserved.
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
