Functional Hazard Analysis with Mil-Std-882E

In this video, I look at Functional Hazard Analysis with Mil-Std-882E (FHA, which is Task 208 in Mil-Std-882E). FHA analyses software, complex electronic hardware, and human interactions. I explore the aim, description, and contracting requirements of this Task, and provide extensive commentary on it. (I refer to other lessons for special techniques for software safety and Human Factors.)

This video, and the related webinar ‘Identify & Analyze Functional Hazards’, deal with an important topic. Programmable electronics and software now run so much of our modern world. They control many safety-related products and services. If they go wrong, they can hurt people.

I’ve been working with software-intensive systems since 1994. Functional hazards are often misunderstood, or overlooked, as they are hidden. However, the accidents that they can cause are very real. If you want to expand your analysis skills beyond just physical hazards, I will show you how.

Functional Hazard Analysis: Context

So how do we analyze software safety?

Before we even start, we need to identify those system functions that may impact safety. We can do this by performing a Functional Failure Analysis (FFA) of all system requirements that might credibly lead to human harm.

An FFA looks at functional requirements (the system should do ‘this’ or ‘that’) and examines what could go wrong. What if:

• The function does not work when needed?
• The function works when not required?
• The function works incorrectly? (There may be more than one version of this.)

(A variation of this technique is explained here.)

If the function could lead to a hazard then it is marked for further analysis. This is where we apply the FHA, Task 208.

Functional Hazard Analysis: The Lesson

Topics: Functional Hazard Analysis

• Task 208 Purpose;
• Task Description;
• Update & Reporting
• Contracting; and
• Commentary.

Transcript: Functional Hazard Analysis

Introduction

Hello, everyone, and welcome to the Safety Artisan; Home of Safety Engineering Training. I’m Simon and today we’re going to be looking at how you analyze the safety of functions of complex hardware and software. We’ll see what that’s all about in just a second.

Functional Hazard Analysis

I’m just going to get to the right page. This, as you can see, functional hazard analysis is Task 208 in Mil. Standard 882E.

Topics for this Session

What we’ve got for today: we have three slides on the purpose of functional hazard analysis, and these are all taken from the standard. We’ve got six slides of task description. That’s the text from the standard plus we’ve got two tables that show you how it’s done from another part of the standard, not from Task 208. Then we’ve got update and recording, another two slides. Contracting, two slides. And five slides of commentary, which again include a couple of tables to illustrate what we’re talking about.

Functional Purpose HA #1

What we’re going to talk about is, as I say, functional hazard analysis. So, first of all, what’s the purpose of it? In classic 882 style, Task 208 is to perform this functional hazard analysis on a system or subsystem or more than one. Again, as with all the other tasks, we use it to identify and classify system functions and the safety consequences of functional failure or malfunction. In other words, hazards.

Now, I should point out at this stage that the standard is focused on malfunctions of the system. In the real world, lots of software-intensive systems cause accidents that have killed people, even when they’re functioning as intended. That’s one of the shortcomings of this Military Standard – it focuses on failure. But even if something performs as specified, either:

• The specification might be wrong, or
• The system might do something that the human operator does not expects.

Mil-Std-882E just doesn’t recognize that. So, it’s not very good in that respect. However, bearing that in mind, let’s carry on with looking at the task.

Functional HA Purpose #2

We’re going to look at these consequences in terms of severity – severity only, we’ll come back to that – to identify what they call safety-critical functions, safety-critical items, safety-related functions, and safety-related items. And a quick word on that, I hate the term ‘safety-critical’ because it suggests a sort of binary “Either it’s safety-critical. Yes. Or it’s not safety-critical. No.” And lots of people take that to mean if it’s “safety-critical, no,” then it’s got nothing to do with safety. They don’t recognize that there’s a sliding scale between maximum safety criticality and none whatsoever. And that’s led to a lot of bad thinking and bad behavior over the years where people do everything they can to pretend that something isn’t safety-related by saying, “Oh, it’s not safety-critical, therefore we don’t have to do anything.” And that kind of laziness kills people.

Anyway, moving on. So, we’ve got these SCFs, SCIs, SRFs, SRIs and they’re supposed to be allocated or mapped to a system design architecture. The presumption in this – the assumption in this task is that we’re doing early – We’ll see that later – and that system design, system architecture, is still up for grabs. We can still influence it.

COTS and MOTS Software

Often that is not the case these days. This standard was written many years ago when the military used to buy loads of bespoke equipment and have it all developed from new. That doesn’t happen anymore so much in the military and it certainly doesn’t happen in many other walks of life – But we’ll talk about how you deal with the realities later.

And they’re allocating these functions and these items of interest to hardware, software, and human interfaces. And I should point out, when we’re talking about all that, all these things are complex. Software is complex, human is complex, and we’re talking about complex hardware. So, we’re talking about components where you can’t just say, “Oh, it’s got a reliability of X, and that’s how often it goes wrong” because those types of simple components are only really subject to random failure, that’s not what we’re talking about here.

We’re talking about complex stuff where we’re talking about systematic failure dominating over random, simple hardware failure. So, that’s the focus of this task and what we’re talking about. That’s not explained in the standard, but that’s what’s going on.

Functional HA Purpose #3

Now, our third slide is on purpose; so, we use the FHA to identify the consequences of malfunction, functional failure, or lack of function. As I said just now, we need to do this as early as possible in the systems engineering process to enable us to influence the design. Of course, this is assuming that there is a system engineering process – that’s not always the case. We’ll talk about that at the end as well.

Also, we’re going to identify and document these functions and items and allocate and it says to partition them in the software design architecture. When we say partition, that’s jargon for separating them into independent functions. We’ll see the value of that later on. Then we’re going to identify requirements and constraints to put on the design team to say, “To achieve this allocation in this partitioning, this is what you must do and this is what you must not do”. So again, the assumption is we’re doing this early. There’s a significant amount of bespoke design yet to be done….

Then What?

Once the FFA has identified the required ‘Level or Rigor’, we need to translate that into a suitable software development standard. This might be:

• RTCA DO-178C (also know as ED-12C) for civil aviation;
• The US Joint Software System Safety Engineering Handbook (JSSEH) for military systems;
• IEC 61508 (functional safety) for the process industry;
• CENELEC-50128 for the rail industry; and
• ISO 26262 for automotive applications.

Such standards use Safety Integrity Levels (SILs) or Development Assurance Levels (DALs) to enforce appropriate Levels of Rigor. You can learn about those in my course Principles of Safe Software Development.

Meet the Author