[SystemSafety] Omitting future considerations from safety cases

[Michael J. Pont]

> I seek your advice on being silent on future system capabilities within a safety case. 

 

An interesting question.

 

In a recent safety case, I have explained the future system capabilities.

 

In my view this was necessary in order to explain some of the decisions made (because of the plan to build on the design in future, the initial design was more complicated than strictly required).  Without this context, the assessor would probably have argued that the system was over engineered.

 

All the best,

 

Michael.

 

Michael J. Pont, PhD

Founder | CEO | Director

SafeTTy Systems Ltd

 

Office: +44 (0)333 0115 501

 <http://www.safetty.net/> www.SafeTTy.net

 

From: systemsafety [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of Daniel Grivicic
Sent: 27 September 2022 23:01
To: systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
Subject: [SystemSafety] Omitting future considerations from safety cases

 

Hi Folks, 

 

I seek your advice on being silent on future system capabilities within a safety case. 

 

In my opinion, including thoughts about the future capabilities of a system (that are not currently used and would require some new work to implement) provides the reader with a pathway to your soul. That is what you see as potential future capabilities and thus allows the reviewer to question these yet-to-be-included capabilities and further delay your late project. 

 

Being silent improves efficiency, and showing intent is (in my opinion) more ethical. 

 

Is there a middle ground, or should I follow my heart?

 

Cheers,

 

Daniel. 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/pipermail/systemsafety/attachments/20220928/6ccbf9ac/attachment.html>