The Agile Safety Case

Stålhane, Tor; Myklebust, Thor

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45480-1_1

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In [Stålhane and Myklebust 2016], it is proposed that the assurance case needs to refer to relevant documents such as code, test results, review results and solution evidences. A different approach is proposed by [Cleland-Huang and Vierhauser 2018], trace links between hazard, safety requirements and design decisions are managed inside PMTs.…”

Section: Comparison With Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Assurance Cases in Requirements Engineering for Safety-Critical Systems

Almendra¹,

Barros²,

Silva³

2019

Anais Estendidos Do X Congresso Brasileiro De Software: Teoria E Prática (CBSoft Estendido 2019)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Certification of safety-critical systems (SCS) demands thorough documentation that demonstrates why a system shall be considered safe. Assurance Case Development (ACD) is an approach for discussing, analyzing and assessing the safety properties of systems. Software requirements of a SCS are an essential information included in assurance cases, alongside system design and safety analysis information. Lack of integrated analysis of requirements and safety concerns may lead to safety issues in the development of critical systems. One of the challenges for the agile development of SCS is to address both Requirements Engineering (RE) and ACD in an integrated way throughout the development life cycle. Objective: This research proposes a framework to integrate the Assurance Case Development and Agile RE in the development of SCS. Method: This research is organized in three main phases. First, a systematic mapping study is performed to understand how incremental ACD is addressed by current approaches, and a survey with experts is carried out to understand the development of ACs during Agile RE activities in practice. Second, the framework and its supporting tools and documentation will be designed and developed. Finally, a series of empirical studies will evaluate aspects of the framework in a multi-perspective manner and as long as it is developed. Conclusions: We expect that this approach contributes to leverage the development of ACs earlier and integrated with RE activities in agile development of SCS.

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Assurance Cases in Requirements Engineering for Safety-Critical Systems

Almendra¹,

Barros²,

Silva³

2019

Anais Estendidos Do X Congresso Brasileiro De Software: Teoria E Prática (CBSoft Estendido 2019)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The aim for short upfront design and for analysing requirements just in time during iterations puts time pressure for determining the safety requirements and makes it difficult to evaluate the quality of the safety arguments [GPM10], [WRW17] which could impede certification [GŁ12]. Even more, attempts to include safety in agile can shift focus from customer value towards verification and validation efforts [SM16a].…”

Section: Rq3: Challenges With Agile Development Of Scsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We then continue with more concrete practices that were proposed in literature, which we grouped in relation to testing and continuous development, regular meetings, and broader safety engineering practices. On-site customer [JLP12] should be part of hazard analysis, safety analysis, SSRS requirements phase, sprint reviews [DK16], [SM16a] at all levels of product development [SM16b], [DKS + 17], [SW13]. Product owner can act as the on-site customer [FSOO13].…”

Section: Rq4: Solution Candidates (Eg Principles and Practices) For C...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Iterative / incremental development Develop components iteratively [GPM10], [PGC + 11], [MMC12], [HHS + 16] in fixed and short iterations delivering functional software [RHJS09], [WBHV06]. Do iterative safety analysis [VW17], [AETO15], have an incremental safety validation plan [SM16a], [RR08] and incremental safety case [SM16a].…”

Section: Process and Release Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Team should maintain a groomed, refined, and prioritised backlog [GŁ13], [McM16], [GEI + 11], [SM16a] with two parts: one for functional requirements and one for safety requirements [AETO15], [DK16], [MSL16], [WW16], [RR08], [Wol12], [HHS + 16] User stories…”

Section: Backlog Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Safety-Critical Systems and Agile Development: A Mapping Study

Kasauli

Knauss

Kanagwa

et al. 2018

2018 44th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last decades, agile methods had a huge impact on how software is developed. In many cases, this has led to significant benefits, such as quality and speed of software deliveries to customers. However, safety-critical systems have widely been dismissed from benefiting from agile methods. Products that include safety critical aspects are therefore faced with a situation in which the development of safety-critical parts can significantly limit the potential speed-up through agile methods, for the full product, but also in the non-safety critical parts. For such products, the ability to develop safety-critical software in an agile way will generate a competitive advantage. In order to enable future research in this important area, we present in this paper a mapping of the current state of practice based on a mixed method approach. Starting from a workshop with experts from six large Swedish product development companies we develop a lens for our analysis. We then present a systematic mapping study on safety-critical systems and agile development through this lens in order to map potential benefits, challenges, and solution candidates for guiding future research.

show abstract