Challenges, Expectations and the Cultural Adoption of ISO 26262 - A partner, no longer an enemy

Leading up to the 6th International Conference ISO 26262, Automotive IQ interviewed Dr. Prof. Stefan Leue, Chair of Software Engineering at the University of Konstanz, on the challenges, expectations and cultural adoption of ISO 26262. Prof. Leue, what has changed in terms of visibility and recognition of IQPC’s ISO 26262 conference within the automotive industry? It seems that the even has constantly grown over the past years and with it the topic itself?

This conference has established itself as one of the main conferences on the subject of the ISO 26262. I think what is special here is that it gives a deep insight into the in-dustrial practice of adoption and implementation of the Standard, and it is also the basis for very intense, detailed and strategic discussions on how the adoption of the Standard is progressing. Of course there’s also a very lively discussion on how this Standard is supposed to evolve, which indicates and shows that this conference is very much a part of the ISO 26262 community.

How is the knowledge about ISO and its implementation? What has changed?

Safety engineering has been around for a lot longer than the Standard and people have always done functional safety. What is new is that the Standard describes particular processes and methods. What has changed is the perception of the Standard. At the beginning it was partially seen as a kind of threat, something that interferes with established procedures. It is now seen as something which is really fundamental to functional safety, representing the state of the art in terms of functional safety and providing good guidance. The Standard is no longer an enemy: it’s a partner these days. From my subjective perspective, that’s the main change.

[inlinead]

The ISO 26262 community is quite c urious about the upcoming revisions that are in process. What do you expect to be the main focus for the second edition of the ISO?

The main issues are adjusting the Standard to evolving trends in the automotive in-dustry. For instance, today we see the discussion of autonomous driving. The topic that has to be addressed is whether the ISO standard is suitable to represent the necessary safety function and safety aspects in the autonomous driving domain. There are quite a lot of people who, with some justification, say that the current version is only partially adequate in order to address that. Other than that, the committee will certainly want to open itself to a larger scope of vehicles – trucks, motorcycles and passenger cars with higher maximum weight. Those are going to be important issues to be addressed by the standards committee. How do you identify new topics and issues which should then be addressed within the ISO standard?

I should mention that I’m not part of the ISO committee and I’m not working on the Standard, so I can only give a somewhat speculative answer. The mechanism is a hierarchical one in the sense that the ISO is the international committee that bundles and edits the Standard and tries to find a consensus from all the participating organi-sations and national standardisation bodies. Individual companies and countries have to go through their standardisation committee in order to influence the Standard. That’s the formal way for generating new ideas – a mix of a grass roots initiative where the individual companies and national bodies bring in ideas. The individuals who form each body will of course bring up new ideas and trends and have them incorporated into the Standard.

What are the most important topics the manufacturers and suppliers would like to see addressed in the next version of the Standard?

Automotive technology is continually changing, evolving and improving. There are three trends that I see right now. One is electronic, energy efficient drivetrains and powertrains, with lots of challenges for intelligent systems that guide these. There are many questions related to functional safety, even though these have been addressed to quite some extent already. The second big new development is certainly autonomous driving. The safety of autonomous driving needs to be redefined in light of the fact that you are no longer necessarily relying on the driver being responsible for the behaviour of the car. The third thing that is going to be of increasing importance and needs to be reflected in the Standard is the relationship between functional safety on one side and security on the other. There are lots interactions between these two goals and unfortunately they are quite diverse technologies to handle. Reconciliation of these goals will not always be easy. This is probably going to have the most significant impact on what the standard is addressing. It may not have an impact on the second edition, but maybe the third.

What are the challenges for the cultural adoption of the Standard?

It is about how companies operating in a global market internally organise their safety culture and safety processes. We know examples of companies maintaining central databases of knowledge that are applicable and accessible by all of their global subsidiaries. This is one mechanism to ensure that there is a global implementation strategy from multinational, multicultural companies. What’s also important is the critical issue of whether companies, due to market pressures, will be inclined to develop different brands and products in different local markets to reflect the different societal pressures on adhering to safety goals. I’m not saying that it’s going to happen, but it’s something we should keep in mind in the coming years.