www.cin.ufpe.br/~ler

Laboratório de Engenharia

de Requisitos

Universidade Federal de Pernambuco

SAFETY MATURITY LEVEL ASSESSMENT

IN THE REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING

PROCESS

Jéssyka Flavyanne Ferreira Vilela jffv@cin.ufpe.br

Advisor: Jaelson Castro

Co-Advisor: Luiz Eduardo Galvão Martins, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)

Level: Doctoral

Admission Term: March/2015

Conclusion Term: February/2019

Outline

Introduction Context

Motivation and Rationale

Research Questions

Research Methodology

Proposal

Plans for Evaluation and Validation

Expected Contributions and Further research

References

2

Introduction - Context

Safety-Critical Systems can be defined as a set of hardware, software,

process, data and people

whose failure could result in accidents that may cause damage to the

environment, financial losses, injury to people and loss of lives [1].

Software has becoming an important aspect in the development process

it has the ability of give instructions to system hardware through actuators [2].

It is becoming a major source of hazards.

the literature reports that software has collaborated to deaths and injuries in

many safety incidents and safety-related catastrophes [1][3][4][5].

3

Introduction – Motivation and

Rationale

In this context, there is a consensus that the most cost-efficient place to

correct many problems is in the RE phase.

Despite this, requirements engineering remains a neglected area in relation to

safety.

Companies should improve their RE process

with the purpose of overcome the difficulties they face during the construction of

SCS.

Requirements problems are less frequent in organizations with high maturity

levels.

performing a safety process evaluation has been recognized as essential

to have more technical results that can be used in a continuous process

improvement [9][10].

4

Introduction – Motivation and

Rationale

There are some assessment frameworks:

Safety maturity models: +SAFE-CMMI-DEV, ISO 15504-10.

RE Process

The Unified Requirements Engineering Process Maturity Model (Uni-REPM)

[12] was proposed to fill this gap.

It is a universal lightweight model that has been well accepted in companies.

It does not consider the safety aspects required for the development of a safety-

critical system.

We also performed a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) about the

integration of requirements engineering and safety analysis.

No maturity model was found.

5

Research Questions

RQ1: Which safety practices are suitable to be used in the requirements

engineering process of safety-critical systems?

RQ2: How to design a safety maturity module for the requirements

engineering process of safety-critical systems?

RQ3: How does the proposed safety maturity module compare with related

solutions?

RQ4: What is the effect of applying Uni-REPM safety module when it is

instantiated in different safety-critical domains?

RQ5: What is the perceived usefulness and ease of use of the Uni-REPM

safety module?

RQ6: How to evaluate whether the module has a sufficient coverage of safety

practices?

6

Research Methodology

7

The Safety Module and its

relationship with Uni-REPM

8

Main Process Areas

9

Subprocess areas

10

Uni-REPM - SPAs

11

Uni-REPM Safety Module - SPAs

12

Actions

13

The UNI-REPM Safety Module –

Example of safety action

14

The UNI-REPM Safety Module –

Example of safety action

15

The UNI-REPM Safety Module –

Example of safety action

16

The UNI-REPM Safety Module –

Example of safety action

17

Module Usage

18

Comparison with related solutions

19

Comparison with related solutions

20

Validation and Evaluation

(i) Validation in academia

based on interviews with academic experts;

(ii) a static validation

through interviews in companies;

(iii) survey

with academics and professionals;

(iv) usability evaluation of the tool;

(v) a dynamic validation

where the module will be applied in industrial organizations.

21

Expected Contributions

Benefits to academia

Benefits to industry

Determination of organization weakness

Module can be used as a diagnostic tool

Availability of assessment instrument

Use of the module to continuous improvement

22

References

23

[1] LEVESON, N. Engineering a safer world: systems thinking applied to safety. Mit Press, 2011.

[2] PANARONI, P. et al. Safety in Automotive Software: an overview of current practices. In:

COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND APPLICATIONS, 2008. COMPSAC’08. 32ND ANNUAL IEEE

INTERNATIONAL, 2008. p.1053–1058.

[3] LUTZ, R. R. Software engineering for safety: a roadmap. In: CONFERENCE ON THE FUTURE

OF SOFTWARE ENGINEERING. 2000. p.213–226.

[4] GUILLERM, R.; DEMMOU, H.; SADOU, N. Information model for model driven safety

requirements management of complex systems. In: COMPLEX SYSTEMS DESIGN &

MANAGEMENT. 2010. p.99–111.

[5] SIMPSON, A.; STOKER, J. Will it be Safe?—An Approach to Engineering Safety Requirements.

In: Components of System Safety. 2002. p.140–164.

[6] SCHOLZ, S.; THRAMBOULIDIS, K. Integration of model-based engineering with system safety

analysis. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, v.15, n.2, p.193–215, 2013.

[7] STANDARDIZATION, I. O. for. ISO/IEC TS 15504-10:2011 - information technology - process

assessment - part 10: safety extension. 2011.

References

24

[8] SEI, S. E. I. +SAFE: a safety extension to cmmi-dev, version 1.2. Defence Materiel

Organisation, Australian Department of Defence, 2007.

[9] JOHANNESSEN, P.; HALONEN, Ö.; ÖRSMARK, O. Functional safety extensions to

automotive spice according to ISO 26262. In: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT AND CAPABILITY DETERMINATION. 2011. p.52–63.

[10] JOHANSSON, M.; NEVALAINEN, R. Additional requirements for process assessment in

safety-critical software and systems domain. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process,

v.24, n.5, p.501–510, 2012.

[11] PEREIRA, R.; SILVA, M. M. da. A maturity model for implementing ITIL V3 in practice. In: ENTERPRISE DISTRIBUTED OBJECT COMPUTING CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS (EDOCW), 2011 15TH IEEE INTERNATIONAL. 2011. p.259–268.

[12] SVAHNBERG, M. et al. Uni-REPM: a framework for requirements engineering process assessment. Requirements Engineering, v.20, n.1, p.91–118, 2015.

[13] GORSCHEK, T. et al. A model for technology transfer in practice. IEEE software, v.23, n.6, p.88–95, 2006.

www.cin.ufpe.br/~ler

Laboratório de Engenharia

de Requisitos

Universidade Federal de Pernambuco

SAFETY MATURITY LEVEL ASSESSMENT

IN THE REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING

PROCESS

Jéssyka Flavyanne Ferreira Vilela jffv@cin.ufpe.br

Advisor: Jaelson Castro

Co-Advisor: Luiz Eduardo Galvão Martins, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)

Level: Doctoral

Admission Term: March/2015

Conclusion Term: February/2019