IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/risrel/v235y2021i6p1132-1153.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of hazard analysis methods capability for safety requirements generation

Author

Listed:
  • Nanda Anugrah Zikrullah
  • Hyungju Kim
  • Meine JP van der Meulen
  • Gunleiv Skofteland
  • Mary Ann Lundteigen

Abstract

A safety-critical system comprising several interacting and software-intensive systems must be carefully analyzed to detect whether new functional requirements are needed to ensure safety. This involves an analysis of the systemic properties of the system, which addresses the effect of the interaction between systems and system parts. The paper compares two hazard analysis methods, which are often considered well-suited for such software-intensive systems: the Functional Hazard Analysis (FHA) and Systems-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA). The focus is on the selection and improvement of the best methods, based on the lesson learned from the comparison of FHA and STPA. The analyses cover the hazard analysis processes, systemic properties, and the criteria of requirements. The paper concludes that STPA is the better choice over FHA. Insights are obtained to align both STPA and FHA methods with the broader topic on risk management, that is, hazard analysis method improvement, cautionary thinking, uncertainty management, and resilience management.

Suggested Citation

  • Nanda Anugrah Zikrullah & Hyungju Kim & Meine JP van der Meulen & Gunleiv Skofteland & Mary Ann Lundteigen, 2021. "A comparison of hazard analysis methods capability for safety requirements generation," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 235(6), pages 1132-1153, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:235:y:2021:i:6:p:1132-1153
    DOI: 10.1177/1748006X211003463
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748006X211003463
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1748006X211003463?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:235:y:2021:i:6:p:1132-1153. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.