@inproceedings{JungHoefigDomisetal.2013, author = {Jung, Jessica and H{\"o}fig, Kai and Domis, Dominik and Jedlitschka, Andreas and Hiller, Martin}, title = {Experimental comparison of two safety analysis methods and its replication}, series = {2013 ACM / IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, December 2013, Baltimore, MD, USA.}, booktitle = {2013 ACM / IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, December 2013, Baltimore, MD, USA.}, isbn = {978-0-7695-5056-5}, pages = {223 -- 232}, year = {2013}, abstract = {(Background) Empirical Software Engineering (SE) strives to provide empirical evidence about the pros and cons of SE approaches. This kind of knowledge becomes relevant when the issue is whether to change from a currently employed approach to a new one or not. An informed decision is required and is particularly important in the development of safety-critical systems. For example, for the safety analysis of safety-critical embedded systems, methods such as Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) and Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) are used. With the advent of model-based systems and software development, the question arises whether safety engineering methods should also be adopted. New technologies such as Component Integrated Fault Trees (CFT) come into play. Industry demands to know the benefits of these new methods over established ones such as Fault Trees (FT). (Methods) For the purpose of comparing CFT and FT with regard to the capabilities of the safety analysis methods (such as quality of the results) and to the participants' rating of the consistency, clarity, and maintainability of the methods, we designed a comparative study as a controlled experiment using a within-subject design. The experiment was run with seven academic staff members working towards their PhD. The study was replicated with eleven domain experts from industry. (Results) Although the analysis of the tasks' solutions showed that the use of CFT did not yield a significantly different number of correct or incorrect solutions, the participants rated the modeling capacities of CFT higher in terms of model consistency, clarity, and maintainability. (Conclusion) From this first evidence, we conclude that CFT have the potential of being beneficial for companies looking for a safety analysis approachfor projects using model-based development.}, language = {en} } @inproceedings{JungJedlitschkaHoefigetal.2013, author = {Jung, Jessica and Jedlitschka, Andreas and H{\"o}fig, Kai and Domis, Dominik and Hiller, Martin}, title = {A controlled experiment on component fault trees}, series = {International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security (SAFECOMP 2013)}, booktitle = {International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security (SAFECOMP 2013)}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Berlin, Heidelberg}, pages = {285 -- 292}, year = {2013}, abstract = {In safety analysis for safety-critical embedded systems, methods such as FMEA and fault trees (FT) are strongly established in practice. However, the current shift towards model-based development has resulted in various new safety analysis methods, such as Component Integrated Fault Trees (CFT). Industry demands to know the benefits of these new methods. To compare CFT to FT, we conducted a controlled experiment in which 18 participants from industry and academia had to apply each method to safety modeling tasks from the avionics domain. Although the analysis of the solutions showed that the use of CFT did not yield a significantly different number of correct or incorrect solutions, the participants subjectively rated the modeling capacities of CFT significantly higher in terms of model consistency, clarity, and maintainability. The results are promising for the potential of CFT as a model-based approach.}, language = {en} }