[SystemSafety] Making Standards available .....

[Andy Ashworth]

As a means of engaging non-practitioners, I distilled safety engineering
down to 6 questions.

 

1.       What is safe? - we need to define our level of
acceptable/unacceptable risk

2.       What is the system required to do? - this is the same question that
we ask when designing a system

3.       What can go wrong with the system? - put on the black hat and start
critically challenging the system functions

4.       So what? - what is the risk associated with the anomalous functions

5.       What are we going to do about it? - safety engineering analysis
informing design.. perhaps a little bit radical in some areas of the world!

6.       Is our delivered system safe? - this ties together the definition
of safety, our functional safety requirements and the associated V&V
results, and produces a technical argument that the system is safe supported
by appropriate evidence.

 

While these are high-level generalisations, I've found that people can
understand the basic flow and see that safety should be an integral part of
the design process and not an after-the-fact confirmation when its too late
to do anything cost-effectively.

 

Cheers


Andy

 

From: systemsafety
[mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of
Les Chambers
Sent: May-16-16 8:21 AM
To: M.Pont at SafeTTy.net; systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] Making Standards available .....

 

RE: The table, Where are you Michael? Are you talking virtual table?

RE: " I think many students would be put off by the standard. "

The standard in its entirety is a cure for insomnia but the Reader's Digest
version can be quite compelling. If all you do is just cover safety life
cycle activities and focus on the big picture. For example, do a hazard
analysis, generate safety requirements, keep a hazard long, close out the
log before you complete the project. And by the way if you work on one of
these big projects you won't get paid unless you do all this so pay
attention, son.

And don't forget the worst-case scenario: you could be responsible for
killing someone.

Cheers

Les

 

 

From: systemsafety
[mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of
Michael J. Pont
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 5:17 PM
To: systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
<mailto:systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de> 
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] Making Standards available .....

 

My summary of this discussion.

 

We have a list made up of people who are interested in functional safety and
in "making the world a safer place".

 

It has been proposed that - to help make the world a safer place - we
should:

 

1.

give students free access to standards (such as IEC 61508);

 

2.

reduce the price of key textbooks;

 

3.

agree a list of material that students need to know.

 

---

 

Personally, I don't think "1" is going to happen, and I'm not sure that it
would contribute very much to the "safer world" goal even if it did.   

 

[Let's stick with IEC 61508.  I think many students would be put off by the
standard (it's hardly a page turner).  We want to inspire these students!]

 

In my view, students can deal with the standards after graduation, and - if
we have the time available to teach functional safety - we should be
introducing practical techniques for developing safe systems (and discussing
various case studies).  If lower-cost textbooks help with this, then this
can be no bad thing.

 

---

 

It seems to me that one of the most influential "standards" that has emerged
in recent years is MISRA C.  The standard is not free (but neither is it
expensive).   It has (in my view) made a positive contribution to the goal
of making the world a safer place.

 

MISRA C is (of course) a coding standard.  What would also be useful would
be a similar, pragmatic document that discussed design guidelines for
software in safety-related systems.  We also need a document that describes
how to record safety requirements and system requirements.

 

This (in my view) is the kind of material that we should be teaching our
students.  

 

If the documents proved to be useful then they could also form the
foundation for future standards (just as MISRA C is referenced in existing
standards).

 

---

 

Members of this list could perhaps make a useful contribution to the
development of such documents?

 

There would be costs involved in this (I think we'd need to start by getting
round a table).  

 

Would anyone have any interest in getting involved?

 

Michael.

 

Michael J. Pont

SafeTTy Systems Ltd.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20160516/eeeb73f2/attachment-0001.html>