Human interaction safety analysis (HISA)

Find safety issues in human-machine interaction (HMI) protocols. The aim of the method is to enable the HMI design to be improved to reduce safety risks, and the analysis results can also be used as part of a safety case.
This is a safety analysis method which systematically identifies interaction failures between humans and machines.

This is a safety analysis method which systematically identifies interaction failures between humans and machines. The focus so far has been on analysis of protocols for transition of control of the dynamic driving task between a human driver and an automated driving system. However, the aim is to extend it to other types of interaction as between humans and cyber-physical systems as well as make use of real-world data to improve the analysis results [HIS1, HIS2].

The process consists of the following steps: (1) propose a communication protocol; (2) create the interaction sequence between a HU (Human User) and a machine as two communicating entities through the HMI, considering the possible combinations of time intervals (Figure ‎3.8, top left where the machine is an ADS – automated driving system); (3) perform cause-consequence analysis (CCA) by constructing cause-consequence diagrams (CCD) based on the interaction sequences (Figure ‎3.8, top right), and for each failed event on the CCD perform a fault tree analysis (FTA) considering a model of human behaviour (Figure ‎3.8, bottom); and lastly (4) perform a risk assessment for identified potential faults and improve the HMI design if the residual risk is considered unacceptable. The results of the analysis should be useful as a part of the argument for safety of the ADS, and thus used in the ADS safety case.

Hisa.png

Figure ‎3.8 Illustration of the HISA method

  • Enables analysis of HMI frameworks with respect to both Electrical and Electronics (E/E) and human errors (functional safety and human factors expertise is combined).
  • Provides (analytical) evidence for an ADS safety case.
  • Lack of dedicated tool support (existing tools for e.g. sequence diagrams and FTA can be used).
  • Low TRL, lack of application to real use cases.

[HIS1] Warg, F., Ursing, S., Kaalhus, M. and Wiik, R., 2020, January. Towards Safety Analysis of Interactions Between Human Users and Automated Driving Systems. In 10th European Congress on Embedded Real Time Software and Systems (ERTS 2020).

[HIS2] M. Skoglund, F. Warg, and B. Sangchoolie: Agreements of an automated driving system, in 37th International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, & Security (SAFECOMP 2018) - Fast Abstract, Sep. 2018.

Method Dimensions
In-the-lab environment
Analytical - Semi-Formal
Hardware, Model, Software
Risk analysis, Concept, System Design
Thinking, Acting, Sensing
Non-Functional - Safety
SCP criteria
Relations
Contents

There are currently no items in this folder.