SpringerLink
Log in

A Personal Opinion Survey on Process Compliance Checking in the Safety Context

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC 2020)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1266))

Abstract

Manually checking the compliance of process plans against the requirements of applicable standards is a common practice in the safety-critical context. We hypothesize that automating this task could be of interest. To test our hypothesis, we conducted a personal opinion survey among practitioners who participate in safety-related process compliance checking. In this paper, we present the results of this survey. Practitioners indicated the methods used and their challenges, as well as their interest in a novel method that could permit them to move from manual to automated practices via compliance checking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.amass-ecsel.eu/.

  2. 2.

    https://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/About-SPEM/.

  3. 3.

    https://www.eclipse.org/epf/.

  4. 4.

    https://research.csiro.au/data61/regorous/.

  5. 5.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/efcab84me7kxpj8/FinalSurvey.pdf?dl=0.

  6. 6.

    http://safety.addalot.se/2019.

References

  1. Bertram, D.: Likert Scales Are the Meaning of Life. CPSC 681-Topic Report (2006). http://poincare.matf.bg.ac.rs/~kristina/topic-dane-likert.pdf

  2. Borg, M., de la Vara, J.L., Wnuk, K.: Practitioners’ perspectives on change impact analysis for safety-critical software – a preliminary analysis. In: Skavhaug, A., Guiochet, J., Schoitsch, E., Bitsch, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2016. LNCS, vol. 9923, pp. 346–358. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45480-1_28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Castellanos Ardila, J.P., Gallina, B.: Formal contract logic based patterns for facilitating compliance checking against ISO 26262. In: 1st Workshop on Technologies for Regulatory Compliance, pp. 65–72 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Castellanos Ardila, J.P., Gallina, B., Ul Muram, F.: Enabling compliance checking against safety standards from SPEM 2.0 Process Models. In: Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, pp. 45–49 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Castellanos Ardila, J.P., Gallina, B., Ul Muram, F.: Transforming SPEM 2.0-compatible process models into models checkable for compliance. In: Stamelos, I., O’Connor, R.V., Rout, T., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2018. CCIS, vol. 918, pp. 233–247. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00623-5_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Castellanos Ardila, J., Gallina, B., Governatori, G.: Lessons learned while formalizing ISO 26262 for compliance checking. In: 2nd Workshop on Technologies for Regulatory Compliance, pp. 1–12 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Davis, F.: A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  8. De La Vara, J., Borg, M., Wnuk, K., Moonen, L.: An industrial survey of safety evidence change impact analysis practice. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 42(12), 1095–1117 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Diebold, P., Scherr, S.: Software process models vs descriptions: what do practitioners use and need? J. Softw.: Evol. Process 29(11), 1–13 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Governatori, G.: Representing business contracts in RuleML. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 14(02n03), 181–216 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Javed, M., Gallina, B.: Get EPF Composer back to the future: a trip from Galileo to Photon after 11 years. In: EclipseCon (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S.: Personal opinion surveys. In: Shull, F., Singer, J., Sjøberg, D.I.K. (eds.) Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering, pp. 63–92. Springer, London (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-044-5_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Nair, S., De La Vara, J., Sabetzadeh, M., Briand, L.: An extended systematic literature review on provision of evidence for safety certification. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56(7), 689–717 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nair, S., De La Vara, J., Sabetzadeh, M., Falessi, D.: Evidence management for compliance of critical systems with safety standards: a survey on the state of practice. Inf. Softw. Technol. 60, 1–15 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nair, S., Kelly, T., Jørgensen, M.: A report on the state-of-the-practice of safety evidence assessment. Technical report (2014)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IDT, Mälardalen University, Västerås, Sweden

    Julieth Patricia Castellanos Ardila & Barbara Gallina

Authors
  1. Julieth Patricia Castellanos Ardila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barbara Gallina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julieth Patricia Castellanos Ardila .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Brunel University, London, UK

    Martin Shepperd

  2. Lisbon University Institute, Lisbon, Portugal

    Fernando Brito e Abreu

  3. University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Alberto Rodrigues da Silva

  4. University of Castilla-La Mancha, Talavera de la Reina, Spain

    Ricardo Pérez-Castillo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Castellanos Ardila, J.P., Gallina, B. (2020). A Personal Opinion Survey on Process Compliance Checking in the Safety Context. In: Shepperd, M., Brito e Abreu, F., Rodrigues da Silva, A., Pérez-Castillo, R. (eds) Quality of Information and Communications Technology. QUATIC 2020. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1266. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58793-2_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58793-2_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-58792-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-58793-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation