Applying CMMI to System Safety - … System Safety Programs People ... The CMMI Approach to any...
Transcript of Applying CMMI to System Safety - … System Safety Programs People ... The CMMI Approach to any...
A-P-T Research, Inc.
M-05-01100-2
Good System Safety ProgramsGood System Safety ProgramsGood System Safety Programs
People
Practices Tools
A combination of factors related to people,practices and tools result in the goodness
of a system safety program
Each of the main factors can be evaluatedto predict the adequacy of the resulting
safety program
A-P-T Research, Inc.
M-05-01100-3
The CMM ConceptThe CMM ConceptThe CMM Concept
Maturity is measured by
Achievement Levels:0 – Incomplete/Entry-level or repeated
fledgling level analyses, casuallyperformed
1 – Pro forma/Perfunctorily2 – Managed (work guided and overseen
by trained Supv.)3 – Defined4 – Quantified (Metrics applied to various
determinants/discriminants)5 – Optimized (Superior)
People
Practices Tools
The maturity of an organization’s capabilitydepend upon 3 interrelated elements
A-P-T Research, Inc.
M-05-01100-4
Why CMM?Why CMM?Why CMM?
The Use of the CMMI approach could provide:
A. Government organizations a means tospecify or evaluate industry safetyprograms
B. Mature industry and governmentprograms a means to “certify” existingmaturity
C. Immature industry or Governmentprograms a way ahead toward morematurity
Capability MaturityModel Integration
“…the quality of a system orproduct is highly influenced bythe quality of the process usedto develop and maintain it.”
Mary Beth Chrissis, et al
“You take you car into a lousyshop, you’re gonna get a lousyjob!”
Tom & Ray Magliazi
A-P-T Research, Inc.
M-05-01100-5
The CMMI Approach to any discipline such as System SafetyThe CMMI Approach to any discipline such as System SafetyThe CMMI Approach to any discipline such as System Safety
sssssrrrrrqqqqqcccccbbbbbaaaaazzzzzyyyyyxxxxx5 - Optimized
ssssrrrrqqqqccccbbbbaaaazzzzyyyyxxxx4 – QuantitativelyManaged
sssrrrqqqcccbbbaaazzzyyyxxx3 – Defined
ssrrqqccbbaazzyyxx2 – Managed
srqcbazyx1 – Performed
NoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone0 - Incomplete
T3…T2T1M3…M2M1P3…P2P1
ToolsMethodsPersonnel
Notional
MeasurementCategories
MeasurementIndices
Levels of Maturity
A-P-T Research, Inc.
M-05-01100-6
PersonnelPersonnelPersonnel
Advanced Degree25 + YearsAdvanced Degreein System Safety5
15 – 25 Years4
CSP7 – 15 Years3
SSS Member3 – 7 Years3 – 5 ShortCourses2
1 – 3 Years1 Week Training1
0 - 1 FulltimeNoneNone0
P5 …P4 - Depth of StaffP3 - CredentialsP2 - ExperienceP1 - Training
Notional
A-P-T Research, Inc.
M-05-01100-7
MethodsMethodsMethods
4, + auditableevidence ofcloseout
4, + designchange usegenerouslyevident
3 & 4, +maintenance/calibration, etc.
4, +maintenance/calibration, etc.
Full Matrix(indicates/spans/Resolution)
3rd Party(>5 long-termsample)
5
Coupledw/Config.Mgmnt. orQuality Prgm
Use enforced3, + severitylevels tailored tocase
All significanttransients
Quantitativematrix scaling
Mgmnt(2nd level)4
Procedure-driven,documented
Used andMonitored
Two or more,case selected
TBDSubjectivematrix tailoring
Peer/Mgmnt(>1 or 1st levelmgmnt)
3
InformalUsed but notmonitored
Two, rote-selected
Modest, pro-forma (eg.,startup/run/stop)
Disciplinedmatrix selection
Peer (1)
2
NoneNot evidentPro-forma(ad-hoc)
NoneNone performedNone performed(solo Analysis)1
0
M7 – HazardTracking
M6 – Use ofRisk Tolerant
Limits
M5 – UseEffectiveness
Hierarchy
M4 – AssetSelection
M3 – MissionPhasing
M2 – MatrixTailoring
M1 – Reviewof Analysis
Notional
A-P-T Research, Inc.
M-05-01100-8
Methods (cont.)Methods (cont.)Methods (cont.)
3 &4, + FMEA orHAZOP, or FHA
RigorousTailored toprogram/systemneeds
Full-bore, readilyauditablew/Reliability,Availability
Designerstrained/intermediateapplication5
Operationalwalkthroughs
3, + Numericallydone
TBDTBDConcurrentengineering4
2, + Energy sourceinventory
Procedurallydocumented
TBDFormal, mandatorycross-feedw/Reliability
Frequent designreviews (e.g., ≈15%intervals)
3
1, + ChecklistSubjective, looselydisciplined
TBDModest, informalcross-feedw/Reliability
Infrequent designreviews (e.g.,30/60/90%)
2
“What-if”NonePro-formaNoneNone1
0
M12 – HazardIdentification
M11 – RiskSummation
M10 – Selection ofRisk Tolerant
Limits
M9 – CrossCoupled “illities”
M8 – Influence ofDesign
A-P-T Research, Inc.
M-05-01100-9
ToolsToolsTools
TBDCCA + (FTA or ETA)Top-Down + Bottom-Up5
TBDCCA (quantified)FMEA or FHA4
TBDFTA a/o ETA (quantified)PHA or HAZOP (w/matrix)3
TBDETA (unquantified)PHA (w/o matrix use)2
TBDFTA (unquantified)PHL1
0
T3 – Probalistic RiskAssessmentT2 – Logic Tree ToolsT1 – Hazard Inventory Tools
A-P-T Research, Inc.
M-05-01100-10
ConclusionConclusionConclusion
• If interest exists, G-48 could develop recommended standards tomeasure/evaluate System Safety program maturity.– APT will host a collegial workshop to define a strawman set of
measurement categories and indices for each.– Produce a report with recommended categories and indices.
A-P-T Research, Inc.
M-05-01100-11
Contact Information:
Tom Pfitzer
256.327.3388
A-P-T Research, Inc.