[SystemSafety] Integrity definition

Tue Mar 15 12:59:35 CET 2016

From: Coq, Thierry
Sent: mardi 15 mars 2016 10:33
To: 'systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de'
Cc: RICQUE Bertrand (SAGEM DEFENSE SECURITE) (bertrand.ricque at sagem.com)
Subject: RE: [SystemSafety] Integrity definition

Hi Bertrand,
It seems what you (and we) are looking for is an internationally agreed mechanism for assessing compliance to safety integrity, the assessment being able to measure and judge compliance for both the relatively quantifiable part of safety integrity and the qualitative part. The answer for defining properly safety integrity would be in how we are able to actually assess, in the process of measuring safety integrity. There are many methods out there for assessing which could be adapted and might be judged adequate. For example, SCAMPI (the CMMI audit process), Class A, is one of the more rigorous process appraisal methods and may be a candidate to judge compliance to the process requirements of safety integrity. Its alternative in ISO-speak is ISO 15504 or SPICE. My experience is that such assessments, well conducted, are very good advanced predictors of safety integrity.

Best regards,
Thierry Coq
Mobile +33 06 80 44 57 92
www.dnvgl.com<http://www.dnvgl.com/>

From: systemsafety [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of RICQUE Bertrand (SAGEM DEFENSE SECURITE)
Sent: mardi 15 mars 2016 09:39
To: systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de<mailto:systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] Integrity definition

Thank you for this material. I am afraid it goes with integrity as with levels of rigour in engineering (and in 61508). Looking at the issue bottom-up, it seems very difficult to justify any loose approach because of a low level of requirement. Trying to aggregate technical “contributors” to integrity raises only, topic per topic, a discussion on a what is not sufficient, and what could potentially be overspecification…

Bertrand Ricque
Program Manager
Optronics and Defence Division
Sights Program
Mob : +33 6 87 47 84 64
Tel : +33 1 58 11 96 82
Bertrand.ricque at sagem.com<mailto:Bertrand.ricque at sagem.com>

From: Les Chambers [mailto:les at chambers.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 12:21 AM
To: RICQUE Bertrand (SAGEM DEFENSE SECURITE); systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de<mailto:systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
Subject: RE: [SystemSafety] Integrity definition

Bertrand
The answer is here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/integrity/
The meta answer is here (composing a "good" definition): http://www.chambers.com.au/glossary_index.php.

I think integrity is best expressed with a class hierarchy as it is used in many different contexts: to express the quality of an object, concept, person or place. The superclass is likely to have properties such as: moral, whole, entire, intact, pure, free of corruption. Most super classes are abstract, you therefore can't instantiate them (Read: apply them to a practical situation - this is probably why we all struggle with our spirituality). You will find your answer further down the tree in one of the object subclasses. Something to do with honesty: that is, making a commitment and delivering on same. This of course raises the issue of the integrity of the commitment, so there is recursion involved. This is why we humans find the concept slippery and don't often practice it.

Like you I've never seen a satisfactory definition of integrity in the engineering context. It's about time we created one. I'd encourage the list to ask the poets and the philosophers and project their wisdom onto our domain. Let us not follow the ancient masters let us seek what they sought and find something new.

Good luck.

Les

From: systemsafety [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of RICQUE Bertrand (SAGEM DEFENSE SECURITE)
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:08 PM
To: systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de<mailto:systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
Subject: [SystemSafety] Integrity definition

I am looking for a definition of “integrity” and/or “safety integrity”, preferably standardised (but I didn’t found anything satisfactorily, in particular in 61508). This definition should allow to compare objects in order to decide which one has more “integrity” than the other.

Bertrand Ricque
Program Manager
Optronics and Defence Division
Sights Program
Mob : +33 6 87 47 84 64
Tel : +33 1 58 11 96 82
Bertrand.ricque at sagem.com<mailto:Bertrand.ricque at sagem.com>

#
" Ce courriel et les documents qui lui sont joints peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles, être soumis aux règlementations relatives au contrôle des exportations ou ayant un caractère privé. S'ils ne vous sont pas destinés, nous vous signalons qu'il est strictement interdit de les divulguer, de les reproduire ou d'en utiliser de quelque manière que ce soit le contenu. Toute exportation ou réexportation non autorisée est interdite.Si ce message vous a été transmis par erreur, merci d'en informer l'expéditeur et de supprimer immédiatement de votre système informatique ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents qui y sont attachés."
******
" This e-mail and any attached documents may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to export control laws and regulations. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, copying of this e-mail and any attachments thereto or use of their contents by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited. Unauthorized export or re-export is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and all attached documents from your computer system."
#

**************************************************************************************
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain confidential information and/or information protected by intellectual property rights for the exclusive attention of the intended addressees named above. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this message and its attachments. Unauthorized use, copying or further full or partial distribution of this e-mail or its contents is prohibited.
**************************************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20160315/2937eafa/attachment-0001.html>