Cookies

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Otherwise, we'll assume you're OK to continue.

Centre for Vision and Visual Cognition

Members

Publication details for Dr Shamus Smith

Smith, Shamus P. & Harrison, Michael D. (2005). Measuring reuse in hazard analysis. Reliability engineering and system safety 89(1): 93-104.

Author(s) from Durham

  • Dr Shamus Smith

Abstract

Hazard analysis for safety-critical systems require sufficient coverage and rigour to instill confidence that the majority of hazardous consequences have been identified. These requirements are commonly met through the use of exhaustive hazard analysis techniques. However, such techniques are time consuming and error-prone. As an attempt at exhaustive coverage, hazard analysts typically employ reuse mechanisms such as copy-and-paste. Unfortunately, if reuse is applied inappropriately there is a risk that the reuse is at the cost of rigour in the analysis. This potential risk to the validity of the analysis is dependent on the nature and amount of reuse applied.

This paper investigates hazard analysis reuse over two case studies. Initially reuse in an existing safety argument is described. Argument structures within the hazard analysis are identified and the amount of verbatim reuse examined. A second study is concerned with how reuse changes as a result of tool support. In contrast to the first case, the defined arguments are more diverse—reuse has occurred but is less verbatim in nature. Although tool support has aided the customisation of the reused arguments, many are only trivially customised. An edit distance algorithm is utilised to identify and enumerate verbatim and trivial reuse in the arguments.

References

1

Adelard—Dependability and safety consultants, http://www.adelard.
com [last access 3/05/04]; 2003.

2

Boggis CRM, Astley SM. Computer-assisted mammographic imaging.
Breast Cancer Res 2000;2(6):392–5.

3

Bo¨rner K. Structural similarity as guidance in case-based design. In:
Wess S, Althoff K-D, Richter MM, editors. Topics in case-based
reasoning. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 837. Berlin:
Springer; 1993. p. 197–208.

4

Bush D, Finkelstein A. Reuse of safety case claims—an initial
investigation. In Proceedings of the London communications
symposium. University College, London; 2001. http://www.ee.ucl.
ac.uk/lcs [last access 3/05/04].

5

Clement T, Cottam I, Froome P, Jones C. The development of a
commercial shrink-wrapped application to safety integrity level 2:
the DUST-EXPERTe story. In: Felici M, Kanoun K, Pasquini A,
editors. 18th International Conference on Computer Safety,
Reliability, and Security (SAFECOMP 1999). Lecture Notes in
Computer Science (LNCS), vol. 1698. Berlin: Springer; 1999. p.
216–25.

6

Dhillon BS. Failure modes and effects analysis—bibliography.
Microelec Reliab 1992;32(5):719–31.

7

DIRC—Interdisciplinary research collaboration on dependability
of computer-based systems, http://www.dirc.org.uk [last access
3/05/04], 2003.

8

Hartswood M, Proctor R. Computer-aided mammography: a case
study of error management in a skilled decision-making task. In
Johnson C. Editor, Proceedings of the first workshop on human error
and clinical systems (HECS’99). University of Glasgow. Glasgow
accident analysis group technical report G99-1; 1999.

9

Karunanithi S, Bieman JM. Measuring software reuse in
object oriented systems and ada software. Technical report CS-
93-125. Department of Computer Science, Colorado State
University; 1993.

10

Kelly TP, McDermid JA. Safety case construction and reuse using
patterns. In: Daniel P, editor. 16th International Conference on
Computer Safety, Reliability and Security (SAFECOMP 1997).
London: Springer; 1997. p. 55–69.

11

Kletz T. Hazop and hazan: identifying and assessing process industrial
hazards. Institution of chemical engineers, 3rd ed. ISBN 0-85295-285-
6; 1992.

12

Leveson NG. Safeware: System Safety and Computers. Reading, MA,
USA: Addison Wesley; 1995.

13

Pardi WJ. XML in action: web technology. IT professional.
Washington: Microsoft Press; 1999.

14

Plaza E. Cases as terms: a feature term approach to the structured
representation of cases. In First international conference on casebased
reasoning (ICCBR-95); 1995, p. 265–276.

15

Pocock S, Harrison M, Wright P, Johnson P. THEA—a technique for
human error assessment early in design. In: Hirose M, editor. Human–
computer interaction: INTERACT’01. IOS Press; 2001. p. 247–54.

16

Pumfrey DJ. The principled design of computer system safety
analysis. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, The
University of York; 2000.

17

Smith SP, Harrison MD. Improving hazard classification through
the reuse of descriptive arguments. In: Gacek C, editor. Software
reuse: methods, techniques, and tools (ICSR-7). Lecture Notes in
Computer Science (LNCS), vol. 2319. Berlin: Springer; 2002. p.
255–68.

18

Smith SP, Harrison MD. Reuse in hazard analysis: identification and
support. In: Anderson S, Felici M, Littlewood B, editors. Computer
Safety, Reliability and Security (SAFECOMP 2003). Lecture Notes in
Computer Science (LNCS), vol. 2788. Berlin: Springer; 2003. p. 382–
95.

19

Strigini L, Povyakalo A, Alberdi E. Human–machine diversity in the
use of computerised advisory systems: a case study. In IEEE
international conference on dependable systems and networks (DSN
2003). San Francisco: IEEE; 2003, p. 249–258.

20

Taylor JR. Risk analysis for process plant, pipelines and transport. E
and FNSPON, London; 1994.

21

Wang JT-L, Zhang K, Jeong K, Shasha D. A system for
approximate tree matching. IEEE Trans Knowled Data Eng 1994;
6(4):559–71.

22

Whitney A, Shasha D, Apter S. High volume transaction processing
without concurrency control, two phase commit, sql or CCC. In
seventh international workshop on high performance transaction
systems, Asilomar; 1997.

23

Wise MJ. YAP3: improved detection of similarities in computer
program and other texts. In Proceedings of SIGCSE’96, Philadelphia;
1996, p. 130–134.

24

Zheng B, Shah R, Wallance L, Hakim C, Ganott MA, Gur D.
Computer-aided detection in mammography: an assessment of
performance on current and prior images. Acad Radiol 2002;9(11):
1245–50.