Skip to content

Safety management update - Process#398

Closed
kroehnd wants to merge 7 commits intoeclipse-score:mainfrom
mercedes-benz:kroehnd_safety_management_update
Closed

Safety management update - Process#398
kroehnd wants to merge 7 commits intoeclipse-score:mainfrom
mercedes-benz:kroehnd_safety_management_update

Conversation

@kroehnd
Copy link
Contributor

@kroehnd kroehnd commented Nov 19, 2025

Addressed the findings in the ticket

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 19, 2025

The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html

masc2023
masc2023 requested changes Nov 19, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@masc2023 masc2023 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just a first rough walk through

PandaeDo
PandaeDo requested changes Nov 21, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@PandaeDo PandaeDo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Didn't check the links. Try to finalize the review until next Tuesday.

process/process_areas/safety_management/safety_management_concept.rst Outdated

For the reporting (e.g. displaying the status of the work products) additional tooling is created.

Guidance
Copy link
Contributor

@PandaeDo PandaeDo Nov 20, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Guidance might be deleted. It's visible in the index and have no additional information.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@kroehnd kroehnd Nov 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Deleted

Copy link
Contributor

@PandaeDo PandaeDo Nov 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Guidance is still a part of the concept description

aschemmel-tech
aschemmel-tech requested changes Nov 21, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See inline comments plus need to correct commit message.

process/process_areas/safety_management/guidance/guideline_safety_management.rst Outdated
| **Scheduling of confirmation reviews, audit and assessment:**
| Scheduling is done in the same way as for all work products definition by issues. The respective work products are :need:`wp__fdr_reports` and :need:`wp__audit_report`
| A person responsible for carrying out the functional safety audit shall be appointed as part of the scheduling process. This person has to have the required skillset and knowledge.
| The functional safety assessor may appoint one or more assistants to support the assessment.
Copy link
Contributor

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech Nov 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is not planned to do an assessment, we only do an audit (see the wp__audit_report mentioned).

Copy link
Contributor Author

@kroehnd kroehnd Nov 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

reworded

Copy link
Contributor

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech Nov 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

still assessment is mentioned. need to remove/reword

process/process_areas/change_management/guidance/change_management_feature_template.rst Outdated
:id: gd_temp__change_feature_request
:status: valid
:complies: std_req__aspice_40__SUP-10-BP1, std_req__aspice_40__SUP-10-BP2, std_req__aspice_40__SUP-10-BP3, std_req__aspice_40__SUP-10-BP5, std_req__aspice_40__iic-18-57, std_req__iso26262__support_8422, std_req__iso26262__support_8431, std_req__iso26262__support_8432
:complies: std_req__aspice_40__SUP-10-BP1, std_req__aspice_40__SUP-10-BP2, std_req__aspice_40__SUP-10-BP3, std_req__aspice_40__SUP-10-BP5, std_req__aspice_40__iic-18-57, std_req__iso26262__support_8422, std_req__iso26262__support_8431, std_req__iso26262__support_8432, std_req__iso26262__management_6431
Copy link
Contributor

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech Nov 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, we wanted to tailor impact analysis on item level, maybe you can link std_req__iso26262__management_644 - this tailoring should also be documented in the Platform Safety Plan (part of PMP, but not part of this PR) - this also applies to other mentions of these requirements (6431, 6432, 6333) below

Copy link
Contributor Author

@kroehnd kroehnd Nov 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

replaced with 644, makes here more sense

Copy link
Contributor

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech Nov 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

6431, 6432, 6433 are still in "checklist_safety_plan" and "guideline_safety_management" (and not in Safety Plan of PMP).

@kroehnd
Fixes eclipse-score#60
242be60 
- Fixed folder structure
- Adapted roles in safety management
- Added dedicated workflow for impact analysis of change requests
@kroehnd
Changes for eclipse-score/score#1143
89066a9 
- [x] _Deviation_8: There is no role defined, which covers the Software Safety Analysis. The committer is intended to cover the Software Safety Analysis, but this is not part of the role description yet._
> Added workflow:: Perform Component Safety Analysis in safety_management_workflow.rst
@kroehnd
https://github.com/eclipse-score/process_description/issues/60
fb1d682 
Addressed the point:
Are the standard requirements, work products complete, correct linked?
@kroehnd
Final adpatations made to adress eclipse-score#78
033af31
@kroehnd
Fixed build error:
84aa78b 
/home/runner/work/process_description/process_description/process/process_areas/safety_management/safety_management_concept.rst:50: WARNING: unknown document: 'roles' [ref.doc]
@kroehnd kroehnd force-pushed the kroehnd_safety_management_update branch from b4265ac to 84aa78b Compare November 25, 2025 04:22
masc2023
masc2023 reviewed Nov 26, 2025
View reviewed changes
process/process_areas/safety_management/safety_management_workproducts.rst Outdated

Work products
-------------
Workproducts Safety Management
Copy link
Contributor

@masc2023 masc2023 Nov 26, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please let it Work products, it is commonly used in all places, beside the sphinx-need id workproduct

Copy link
Contributor Author

@kroehnd kroehnd Nov 26, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Workproducts Requirements Engineering
Work Products Release Management
Workproducts (Quality)
Work Products Documentation Management
Work Products Configuration Management

Based on the above evidence I will change it to
Work Products Safety Management

Copy link
Contributor

@masc2023 masc2023 Dec 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Separate PR for formal topics done by @RolandJentschETAS , but Safety Management excluded, so in a future PR these have to adapted accordingly

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech mentioned this pull request Nov 28, 2025
Merged
@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech changed the title Safety management update https://github.com/eclipse-score/process_description/issues/60 Safety management update Nov 28, 2025
aschemmel-tech
aschemmel-tech requested changes Nov 28, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

still four open points (two old and two new) - "unresolved" these so they are visible.

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech changed the title Safety management update Safety management update - Process Nov 28, 2025
PandaeDo
PandaeDo reviewed Nov 28, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@PandaeDo PandaeDo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would appreciate if you can update the description and use the same format for upper and lower case and also for enumerations.

Also we discussed in summer that we want to improve the documentation with one single source in the document management. Please check against it and use also the related issues. With this it might be needed to update the descriptions of the wf and wp and also the templates.

Still not checked the linked standards. Try to continue with this next week

process/process_areas/safety_management/safety_management_getstrt.rst
:id: doc_getstrt__safety_management_process
:status: valid

If you are appointed as a :need:`Safety Manager <rl__safety_manager>` by the :need:`Project Lead <rl__project_lead>` in the project:
Copy link
Contributor

@PandaeDo PandaeDo Nov 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Processes are not only relevant for the Safety Manager. Workflows are also related to Committer, Safety Engineer, External Auditor, Project Lead and all others that might be interested in Safety Management. I would appreciate to have a general getting started where it's described how you can start to discover Safety Management.

Copy link
Contributor

@PandaeDo PandaeDo Dec 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

#398

process/process_areas/safety_management/safety_management_concept.rst

* planning of development for module and for platform projects

#. :need:`Safety Manager <rl__safety_manager>`
Copy link
Contributor

@PandaeDo PandaeDo Nov 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would think the Safety Manager is the most important Stakeholder. Also I would recommend to align the bullet point to the workflows / responsibilities they have. Which information`s do they need to do it?

Copy link
Contributor

@PandaeDo PandaeDo Dec 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

#398

process/process_areas/safety_management/safety_management_concept.rst
#. :need:`Safety Manager <rl__safety_manager>`

* main responsible to ensure ISO 26262 compliance in the project
* role definition in :doc:`/process_areas/safety_management/safety_management_roles`
Copy link
Contributor

@PandaeDo PandaeDo Nov 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This might be changed to information´s the Safety Manager needs.

Copy link
Contributor

@PandaeDo PandaeDo Dec 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

#398

process/process_areas/safety_management/safety_management_workproducts.rst

Work products
-------------
Work Products Safety Management
Copy link
Contributor

@PandaeDo PandaeDo Nov 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Description of Safety Plan WP seems to me outdated. One example is that there is no dates, milestones in the Safety Plan itself.

process/process_areas/safety_management/guidance/template_module_safety_plan.rst
:status: valid
:complies: std_req__iso26262__management_6465, std_req__iso26262__management_6466, std_req__iso26262__management_6467, std_req__iso26262__management_6468, std_req__iso26262__management_6469, std_req__isopas8926__44341, std_req__isopas8926__44342, std_req__isopas8926__44611, std_req__isopas8926__4463
:complies: std_req__iso26262__management_5425, std_req__iso26262__management_5424, std_req__iso26262__management_6465, std_req__iso26262__management_6466, std_req__iso26262__management_6467, std_req__iso26262__management_6468, std_req__iso26262__management_6469, std_req__isopas8926__44341, std_req__isopas8926__44342, std_req__isopas8926__44611, std_req__isopas8926__4463, std_req__iso26262__management_5427, std_req__iso26262__management_6421

Copy link
Contributor

@PandaeDo PandaeDo Nov 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shall be aligned to https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/platform_management_plan/quality_management.html as discussed. Only references to Document Management Plan, no link to Issues etc.

masc2023
masc2023 approved these changes Dec 2, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@masc2023 masc2023 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As discussed in https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/2234#discussioncomment-15105437, fine for now, missing changes must be done in in another PR

aschemmel-tech
aschemmel-tech approved these changes Dec 2, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We agreed to merge and solve open topics in follow-up PR.

PandaeDo
PandaeDo approved these changes Dec 2, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@PandaeDo PandaeDo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fine for now. Open changes must be done in in another PR

@aschemmel-tech
Copy link
Contributor

aschemmel-tech commented Dec 3, 2025 •
edited
Loading

As @FScholPer could not resolve the issues and bring this to merge at the moment, the updates will be made part of another PR by @aschemmel-tech

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech mentioned this pull request Dec 3, 2025
Merged
@aschemmel-tech
Copy link
Contributor

aschemmel-tech commented Dec 3, 2025

Closed and replicated in #433

@PandaeDo PandaeDo mentioned this pull request Dec 5, 2025
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech aschemmel-tech approved these changes

@PandaeDo PandaeDo PandaeDo approved these changes

@masc2023 masc2023 masc2023 approved these changes

@pahmann pahmann Awaiting requested review from pahmann pahmann is a code owner

@PhilipPartsch PhilipPartsch Awaiting requested review from PhilipPartsch

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@kroehnd @aschemmel-tech @masc2023 @PandaeDo