R. Lutz, G. Helmer, M. Moseman, D. Statezni, and S. Tockey, "Safety Analysis of Requirements for a Product Family", Proc. of 3rd IEEE Int. Conference on Requirements Engineering (ICRE '98), 24-31, Colorado Springs, IEEE CS Press, 6-10 April 1998. Home/Search Document Details and Download
Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
Bi-directional Analysis for Certification of Safety-Critical.. - Lutz, Woodhouse (1999) (1 citation) Self-citation (Lutz) (Correct)
.... The column may recommend a change to the design (e.g. in one case, an explicit test of the component s postconditions to preclude inconsistent user displays) or it may even propose a change to the requirements (e.g. a clearer policy on required handling of double point or coincident failures) [18]. Recent work in combining forward and backward analyses of safety critical systems supports the notion that these techniques are complementary [18, 7, 21] Work has been done to extend the HAZOP approach to a systematic exploration of hypothetical failures, with lists of guidewords or historical ....
.... displays) or it may even propose a change to the requirements (e.g. a clearer policy on required handling of double point or coincident failures) 18] Recent work in combining forward and backward analyses of safety critical systems supports the notion that these techniques are complementary [18, 7, 21]. Work has been done to extend the HAZOP approach to a systematic exploration of hypothetical failures, with lists of guidewords or historical failure modes contributing to the hazards analysis in the software under review [23] Automated tools to assist with portions of these analyses are ....
[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]
Lutz, R., G. Helmer, M. Moseman, D. Statezni, and S. Tockey (1998), "Safety Analysis of Requirements for a Product Family,"Proc Third IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering.
Extending the Product Family Approach to Support Safe Reuse - Lutz (2000) Self-citation (Lutz) (Correct)
....spaceborne telescopes) A product family is a set of systems with very similar requirements and a few key differences. Missions such as these must be demonstrably safe, but the consequences of broad reuse are hard to evaluate from a software safety perspective (Addy, 1998; Gomaa, 1995; Lam, 1998; Lutz et al. 1998; Rushby, 1994) This paper reports experience specifying an interferometer (telescope) subsystem as a product family, incorporating a safety analysis to identify additional requirements, and using the enhanced requirements for design evaluation of reusable components, as well as individual ....
....whether these states were credible was similar to Software Fault Tree Analysis. In performing the bi directional search the analysis drew on previous experiences with safety critical spacecraft software and with another product family, a flight instrumentation subsystem (Lutz and Woodhouse, 1997; Lutz et al. 1998). Fourteen failures that could contribute to the hazards were identified for the Delay Line component. A high level summary is shown in column 2 of Table 1. The third column 6 Item Failure Handling Status 1. Unable to match external pathlength delay New 2. Moves to incorrect position Open 3. ....
Lutz, R., Helmer, G., Moseman, M., Statezni, D., Tockey, S., 1998. Safety Analysis of Requirements for a Product Family, Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering , IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 24--31.
Toward Safe Reuse of Product Family Specifications - Lutz (1999) (1 citation) Self-citation (Robyn) (Correct)
....May 21 23, 1999. Author s mailing address: Dept. of Computer Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011 1041. e.g. a fleet of spaceborne telescopes) Missions such as these must be demonstrably safe, but the consequences of broad reuse are hard to evaluate from a software safety perspective [1, 6, 13, 16, 19]. This paper reports experience specifying an interferometer (telescope) subsystem as a product family, performing a hazards analysis to enhance its software requirements, and using the requirements to evaluate the design of a reusable component. Fig. 1 shows an overview of an interferometer. An ....
....the product family requirements. Some additional software safety requirements can be derived from the PHA but are outside the scope of the delay line software (e.g. a software check that the commanded configuration or cross strapping is permitted) Further analysis (e.g. a fault tree analysis [16]) of the hazards can help identify safeguards against these remaining hazards. 4. Design Evaluation The third piece of this work was to evaluate the design of the reusable software components that were being developed against the product family requirements. Each of the twenty commonality ....
Lutz, Robyn, G. Helmer, M. Moseman, D. Statezni, and S. Tockey, "Safety Analysis of Requirements for a Product Family," Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (ICRE '98), April 6-10, 1998, Colorado Springs, CO.
Requirements Engineering: a roadmap - Nuseibeh, Easterbrook (2000) (28 citations) (Correct)
No context found.
R. Lutz, G. Helmer, M. Moseman, D. Statezni, and S. Tockey, "Safety Analysis of Requirements for a Product Family", Proc. of 3rd IEEE Int. Conference on Requirements Engineering (ICRE '98), 24-31, Colorado Springs, IEEE CS Press, 6-10 April 1998.
Requirements Engineering: A Roadmap - Nuseibeh, Easterbrook (2000) (28 citations) (Correct)
No context found.
Lutz, R., Helmer, G., Moseman, M., Statezni, D. & Tockey, S. (1998). Safety Analysis of Requirements for a Product Family. 3rd IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (ICRE '98), Colorado Springs, USA, 6-10 April 1998, pp. 24-31.
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC