Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
An Industrial Survey of Safety Evidence Change Impact Analysis Practice
Carlos III University of Madrid, ESP. (Computer Science Department,)
SICS Swedish ICT AB, SWE.
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering. (SERL)
Certus Centre for S oftware V&V, NOR. (Certus Centre for Software V&V, Simula Research Laboratory)
2016 (English)In: IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, ISSN 0098-5589, E-ISSN 1939-3520, Vol. 42, no 12, 1095-1117 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Context. In many application domains, critical systems must comply with safety standards. This involves gathering safety evidence in the form of artefacts such as safety analyses, system specifications, and testing results. These artefacts can evolve during a system's lifecycle, creating a need for change impact analysis to guarantee that system safety and compliance are not jeopardised. Objective. We aim to provide new insights into how safety evidence change impact analysis is addressed in practice. The knowledge about this activity is limited despite the extensive research that has been conducted on change impact analysis and on safety evidence management. Method. We conducted an industrial survey on the circumstances under which safety evidence change impact analysis is addressed, the tool support used, and the challenges faced. Results. We obtained 97 valid responses representing 16 application domains, 28 countries, and 47 safety standards. The respondents had most often performed safety evidence change impact analysis during system development, from system specifications, and fully manually. No commercial change impact analysis tool was reported as used for all artefact types and insufficient tool support was the most frequent challenge. Conclusion. The results suggest that the different artefact types used as safety evidence co-evolve. In addition, the evolution of safety cases should probably be better managed, the level of automation in safety evidence change impact analysis is low, and the state of the practice can benefit from over 20 improvement areas.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
IEEE, 2016. Vol. 42, no 12, 1095-1117 p.
Keyword [en]
survey research, Safety-critical system, safety evidence, change impact analysis, state of the practice
National Category
Engineering and Technology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:bth-13689DOI: 10.1109/TSE.2016.2553032ISI: 000390672800001OAI: oai:DiVA.org:bth-13689DiVA: diva2:1061126
Projects
OPENCOSS, Research Council of Norway
Available from: 2016-12-31 Created: 2016-12-31 Last updated: 2017-01-20Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full texthttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7450627/

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Wnuk, Krzysztof
By organisation
Department of Software Engineering
In the same journal
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Engineering and Technology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 28 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf