The Role of the FSM

WEBVTT

-->


-->


-->


-->


-->


00:00:01.000 --> 00:01:05.000
Hello and welcome to a new episode of “Applied FuSa,” the podcast for FuSa pragmatists!

00:01:06.000 --> 00:02:01.000
The topic is complex. So, I would like to start with a brief overview of this episode.

00:02:02.000 --> 00:03:54.000
Let’s begin by looking at the role of the FSM as it has been established in many companies since the first publication of the safety standard in 2011.

00:03:55.000 --> 00:06:27.000
So let’s turn to that topic for a moment.

00:06:28.000 --> 00:06:47.000
Let us now examine to what extent ISO 26262 actually defines responsibility for those work products for which the FSM role is assigned ownership—before we conclude with a comparative evaluation of the two roles. Let’s begin with the Safety Plan.

00:06:48.000 --> 00:07:33.000
Part 2, Clauses 6.4.5 and 6.4.13 define requirements for the Safety Plan. However, there is no indication there of who is responsible for the Safety Plan. Only the required contents are specified.

00:07:34.000 --> 00:08:17.000
Requirements for the Development Interface Agreement can be found in Part 8. An initial indication of responsibility for the safety manager is found in Note 1 to Clause 5.2:

00:08:18.000 --> 00:08:53.000
The requirements for the Safety Case contain no indication as to which role should assume responsibility or ownership for this work product. However, it is clear that the safety manager is at least responsible, since the development of the Safety Case must always be planned, coordinated, and monitored.

00:08:54.000 --> 00:09:57.000
ISO 26262 does not specify which role should assume responsibility or ownership for the Release for Production Report. Both questions remain completely open. However, it is clear once again that the safety manager must at least assume responsibility—that is, planning, coordination, and monitoring of the development of this report.

00:09:58.000 --> 00:11:31.000
The Tool Evaluation and Qualification Report actually consists of two work products according to ISO 26262: the Software Tool Criteria Evaluation Report and the Software Tool Qualification Report. However, it has proven pragmatic to combine both reports into a single Tool Evaluation and Qualification Report.

00:11:32.000 --> 00:12:01.000
A Competence Management Report is intended to provide the “evidence for competence management” required in Part 2, Chapter 5, Clause 5.5. Who is responsible for creating this report is not defined. However, since this is once again a cross-competence activity, it makes sense for the FSM to be responsible for its creation. In other words, the FSM assumes ownership. This is exactly how it is handled in many companies.

00:12:02.000 --> 00:13:01.000
Last but not least: the Confirmation Measures Plan. Here, ISO 26262 makes an exception, because very clear requirements are defined regarding the independence of the person who is to carry out each individual confirmation measure. Confirmation measures are, as is well known, either confirmation reviews of specific work products or functional safety (FS) audits or assessments.

00:13:02.000 --> 00:15:31.000
That covers the question of which responsibilities ISO 26262 defines for the safety manager regarding the work products for which the FSM is generally expected to assume ownership. Now, let’s move on to a final evaluation.

00:15:32.000 --> 00:15:49.011
Applied FuSa – a podcast for Functional Safety pragmatists.
Get your new piece of FuSa every other week.