Banner

TUTORIAL

The tutorial will introduce you to selected topics of FORMS/FORMAT 2014. Everyone is welcome who is willing to learn about formal methods and systems safety engineering methods in railway and automotive systems. The tutorial will be hold half-day on the 30th of September 2014.

Click on the following link to download the program of FORMS/FORMAT: FORMS/FORMAT 2014 Program Flyer (1.9 MB)


FORMS/FORMAT Tutorial Program

08:00 Registration of Attendees
09:00 E. Schnieder Welcome Address
09:10 S. Arndt & D. Schnäpp Requirements Engineering as a Language Issue – Or: How to Avoid the Pitfalls of Natural Language
09:55 Refreshment Break
10:10 C. Möhlenbrink Human Factors Tutorial - Modelling Human Machine Systems
10:55 Refreshment Break
11:10 F. Heyle Common Safety Methods
11:55 End of Tutorial


ABSTRACT OF REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING

Presenter: Susanne Arndt, M.A.

Safe products require unambiguous, precise, complete, consistent, understandable, and high-quality requirements. Most experts involved in requirements engineering agree that this is partially a matter of representation of requirements as well as of reviewing requirements representations. Especially when it comes to natural language requirements, many factors may affect our ideal of a requirements document. Those factors first relate to the very structural properties that constitute natural language. Further complication comes into play when different habits of language use become an issue, for example, when different stakeholders are involved. Customers may have very different backgrounds from technical experts in development, construction or training. This background does not only lead to differences in knowledge but also in means of wording that knowledge by terminology. Requirements are thus prone to being heterogeneous and discussions full of misunderstandings. Consequently, means of knowledge and terminology synchronization are needed. The tutorial will therefore introduce some pitfalls of natural language as well as basic concepts of terminology management for requirements engineers and managers.


ABSTRACT OF HUMAN FACTORS TUTORIAL

Presenter: Dr.-Ing. Christoph Möhlenbrink

Within this tutorial we will discuss the diversity of models within the field of cognitive engineering and human factors. We will look into the “toolbox of models” and review thoughts, ideas, models and techniques suggested by Rasmussen, Wickens, Degani and others. We will pick several modeling examples and discuss their contribution to cognitive engineering problems.
Finally, I will close the tutorial introducing a human-machine petrinet model in the context of air traffic control. The strength of this modeling approach – as one model from the toolbox- is the ability for formal analyses of the holistic human-machine system. The transferability of this approach to other domains should be discussed.


ABSTRACT OF COMMON SAFETY METHODS

Presenter: Dr. Fabian Heyle

In addition to the generally recognised codes of practice and half a dozen other definitions, the new version of the CSM-Regulation, COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No. 402/2013 on the adoption of a common safety method on risk evaluation and assessment has also adapted the term "risk". While the CSM-CR 2009 still considered the combination of the rate of occurrence (german version: “Wahrscheinlichkeit”) of accidents and incidents resulting in harm (caused by hazard), and the degree of severity of that harm, the CSM-CR 2013 has replaced the reference point "rate of occurance" with that of "frequency of occurance" (german version: “Häufigkeit”). As a result, the CSM-CR 2013 now tends towards the statistical concept of probability which describes probability as a threshold value of the relative frequency of a characteristic in a larger group. The legal consideration should initially trace the development of national railway law from risk avoidance law to European risk management law, and a further shift towards risk supervision law. New technical and legal questions concerning the assessment of security risk aspects indicate the need for new "stop rules" for both disciplines. For the legal assessment of the technical innovations, the excessive legal principles should be shown as general benchmark of litigation orientation and rendered productive.