PSAM 16 Conference Paper Overview
Welcome to the PSAM 16 Conference paper and speaker overview page.
Lead Author: Thor Myklebust Co-author(s): Tor Stålhane stalhane@sintef.no
| Purchasers and integrators of safety components and products, which information should we ask for? |
|---|
| Several manufacturers of safety products and safety systems have to purchase and integrate components and products produced elsewhere and sometimes for another environment or use. Examples of components and products that manufacturers integrate are microchips, libraries, openSafety protocols, COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) software, sensors, and valves. One could divide this integration into three categories: components and products having a (1) SIL (Safety Integrity Level) compatibility certificate, (2) integrator and supplier have DIA (Development Interface Agreement) or similar, and (3) COTS or similar. This paper focuses on suppliers that deliver components or products, including a SIL compatibility certificate and six other relevant documents (safety manual, safety case including safety-related application conditions (SRAC) and hazard log, safety assessment report, certificate report, and user manual). We start with an explanation of the relevant documents and which safety standards include requirements for such documents. This paper aims to aid purchasers and integrators with the purchasing process. Speed to market is the key to success. Having the knowledge and experience related to these documents implies less work for the manufacturer and earlier approval by assessors and certification bodies. Our experience and discussions with several companies have shown us that not having experience using these documents has resulted in inferior contracts, delays, design challenges, and not having the relevant information available at the right time. Using the described approach will save time and cost and reduce the risk of not having relevant information available for the engineers, thus ending up with a product with hidden information. An example is, e.g., an SRAC solved by the manufacturer by describing a solution in the user manual instead of having a sufficiently good design. Due to the SRAC, the design is acceptable from a safety point of view. The design is acceptable for the ISA (Independent Safety Assessor) and/or CB (Certification Body) but may not be acceptable for the purchaser. |
Paper TH14 Preview
Author and Presentation Info
Lead Author Name: Thor Myklebust (thor.myklebust@sintef.no)
Bio: Senior researcher, System Safety and development of safety-critical software His experience is in assessment and certification of products and systems since 1987. Has worked for the National Metrology Service, Aker Maritime, Nemko and SINTEF. Myklebust has participated in several international committees since 1988. Member of safety (NEK/IEC 65), the IEC 61508 maintenance committee, stakeholder UL 4600 autonomous products and railway (NEK/CENELEC/TC 9). He is co-author of three books (The Agile Safety Case, SafeScrum and Functional safety and proof of compliance) and published more than 250 papers and reports.
Country: Norway
Company: SINTEF Digital
Job Title: Senior researcher
Bio: Senior researcher, System Safety and development of safety-critical software His experience is in assessment and certification of products and systems since 1987. Has worked for the National Metrology Service, Aker Maritime, Nemko and SINTEF. Myklebust has participated in several international committees since 1988. Member of safety (NEK/IEC 65), the IEC 61508 maintenance committee, stakeholder UL 4600 autonomous products and railway (NEK/CENELEC/TC 9). He is co-author of three books (The Agile Safety Case, SafeScrum and Functional safety and proof of compliance) and published more than 250 papers and reports.
Country: Norway
Company: SINTEF Digital
Job Title: Senior researcher