@book {26025,
	title = {Fifth International Workshop on Software Engineering Research and Industrial Practice},
	journal = {International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)},
	year = {2018},
	month = {May},
	publisher = {ACM},
	address = {Gothenburg, Sweden},
	author = {Shukla, Rakesh and Marijan, Dusica and Borg, Markus and Yang, Ye}
}
@misc {25693,
	title = {Safety Evidence Change Impact Analysis in Practice},
	howpublished = {International Conference on Software Engineering, Buenos Aires, Argentina},
	year = {2017},
	publisher = {ACM/IEEE},
	abstract = {In many application domains, critical systems must comply with safety standards. This involves gathering safety evidence in the form of artefacts such as safety analyses, system specifications, and testing results. These artefacts can evolve during a system{\textquoteright}s lifecycle, creating a need for impact analysis to guarantee that system safety and compliance are not jeopardised. Although extensive research has been conducted on change impact analysis and on safety evidence management, the knowledge about how safety evidence change impact analysis is addressed in practice is limited. This paper reports on a survey targeted at filling this gap by analysing the circumstances under which safety evidence change impact analysis is addressed, the tool support used, and the challenges faced. We obtained 97 valid responses representing 16 application domains, 28 countries, and 47 safety standards. The results suggest that most practitioners deal with safety evidence change impact analysis during system development and mainly from system specifications. Furthermore, the level of automation in the process is low and insufficient tool support is the most frequent challenge. Other notable findings include that the different artefact types used as safety evidence seem to co-evolve, the evolution of safety case should probably be better managed, and no commercial impact analysis tool has been reported as used for all artefact types. Finally, we identified over 20 areas where the state of the practice in safety evidence change impact analysis can be improved.\&nbsp;},
	keywords = {Maintenance process, Methods for SQA and V\&V, Software and System Safety, Standards},
	isbn = {978-1-5386-3868-2},
	author = {Jose Luis {de la Vara} and Borg, Markus and Wnuk, Krzysztof and Moonen, Leon}
}
@inproceedings {vara:2017:icse,
	title = {Safety Evidence Change Impact Analysis in Practice},
	journal = {International Conference on Software Engineering},
	year = {2017},
	month = {05/2017},
	publisher = {ACM/IEEE},
	abstract = {In many application domains, critical systems must comply with safety standards. This involves gathering safety evidence in the form of artefacts such as safety analyses, system specifications, and testing results. These artefacts can evolve during a system\&$\#$39;s lifecycle, creating a need for impact analysis to guarantee that system safety and compliance are not jeopardised. Although extensive research has been conducted on change impact analysis and on safety evidence management, the knowledge about how safety evidence change impact analysis is addressed in practice is limited. This paper reports on a survey targeted at filling this gap by analysing the circumstances under which safety evidence change impact analysis is addressed, the tool support used, and the challenges faced. We obtained 97 valid responses representing 16 application domains, 28 countries, and 47 safety standards. The results suggest that most practitioners deal with safety evidence change impact analysis during system development and mainly from system specifications. Furthermore, the level of automation in the process is low and insufficient tool support is the most frequent challenge. Other notable findings include that the different artefact types used as safety evidence seem to co-evolve, the evolution of safety case should probably be better managed, and no commercial impact analysis tool has been reported as used for all artefact types. Finally, we identified over 20 areas where the state of the practice in safety evidence change impact analysis can be improved.\&nbsp;\&nbsp;},
	keywords = {Maintenance process, Methods for SQA and V\&V, Software and System Safety, Standards},
	isbn = {978-1-5386-3868-2},
	issn = {1558-1225},
	author = {Jose Luis {de la Vara} and Borg, Markus and Wnuk, Krzysztof and Moonen, Leon},
	editor = {Uchitel, Sebasti{\'a}n and Orso, Alessandro and Martin P. {Robillard}}
}
@article {delaVara:2016:TSE,
	title = {An Industrial Survey of Safety Evidence Change Impact Analysis Practice},
	journal = {IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering},
	volume = {42},
	year = {2016},
	month = {12/2016},
	pages = {1095-1117},
	publisher = {IEEE},
	abstract = {In many application domains, critical systems must comply with safety standards. This involves gathering safety evidence in the form of artefacts such as safety analyses, system specifications, and testing results. These artefacts can evolve during a system\&$\#$39;s lifecycle, creating a need for impact analysis to guarantee that system safety and compliance are not jeopardised. Although extensive research has been conducted on change impact analysis and on safety evidence management, the knowledge about how safety evidence change impact analysis is addressed in practice is limited. This paper reports on a survey targeted at filling this gap by analysing the circumstances under which safety evidence change impact analysis is addressed, the tool support used, and the challenges faced. We obtained 97 valid responses representing 16 application domains, 28 countries, and 47 safety standards. The results suggest that most practitioners deal with safety evidence change impact analysis during system development and mainly from system specifications. Furthermore, the level of automation in the process is low and insufficient tool support is the most frequent challenge. Other notable findings include that the different artefact types used as safety evidence seem to co-evolve, the evolution of safety case should probably be better managed, and no commercial impact analysis tool has been reported as used for all artefact types. Finally, we identified over 20 areas where the state of the practice in safety evidence change impact analysis can be improved.},
	keywords = {Maintenance process, Methods for SQA and V\&V, Software and System Safety, Standards},
	issn = {0098-5589},
	doi = {10.1109/TSE.2016.2553032},
	url = {http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=2553032},
	author = {Jose Luis {de la Vara} and Borg, Markus and Wnuk, Krzysztof and Moonen, Leon}
}
@inproceedings {SEAA2014,
	title = {Development of Safety-Critical Software Systems Using Open Source Software - a Systematic Map},
	journal = {40th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA 2104)},
	year = {2014},
	publisher = {IEEE},
	type = {Conference},
	abstract = {The popularity of Open Source Software (OSS) has increased the interest in using it in safety critical applications. The aim of this study is to review research carried out on usage of open source code in development of safety-critical software and systems. We conducted a systematic mapping study through searches in library databases and manual identification of articles from open source conferences.We have identified 22 studies about using open source software, mainly in automotive, aerospace, medical and nuclear domains. Moreover, only a few studies present complete safety systems that are released as OSS in full. The most commonly used OSS functionalities are operating systems, imaging, control and data management. Finally most of the integrated OSS have mature code bases and a commit history of more than five years.},
	author = {Sardar Muhammad {Sulaman} and Orucevic-Alagic, Alma and Borg, Markus and Wnuk, Krzysztof and H{\"o}st, Martin and Jose Luis {de la Vara}},
	editor = {Rabiser, R. and Torkar, R. and Quaglia, D.}
}
@techreport {25293,
	title = {Survey on Safety Evidence Change Impact Analysis for Critical Systems: Summary of Results},
	number = {2014-03},
	year = {2014},
	publisher = {Simula Research Laboratory},
	author = {Jose Luis {de la Vara} and Borg, Markus and Wnuk, Krzysztof and Moonen, Leon}
}
@techreport {IASurvey,
	title = {Survey on Safety Evidence Change Impact Analysis in Practice: Detailed Description and Analysis},
	number = {2014-18},
	year = {2014},
	month = {November},
	publisher = {Simula Research Laboratory},
	abstract = {Critical systems must comply with safety standards in many application domains. This involves gathering safety evidence in the form of artefacts such as safety analyses, system specifications, and testing results. These artefacts can evolve during a system\&$\#$39;s lifecycle, and impact analysis might be necessary to guarantee that system safety and compliance are not jeopardised. Although extensive research has been conducted on impact analysis and on safety evidence management, the knowledge about how safety evidence change impact analysis is addressed in practice is limited. This technical report presents a survey targeted at filling this gap by analysing the circumstances under which safety evidence change impact analysis is addressed, the tool support used, and the challenges faced. We obtained 97 valid responses representing 16 application domains, 28 countries, and 47 safety standards. The results suggest that most projects deal with safety evidence change impact analysis during system development and mainly from system specifications, the level of automation in the process is low, and insufficient tool support is the most frequent challenge. Other notable findings are that safety case evolution should probably be better managed, no commercial impact analysis tool has been reported as used for all artefact types, and experience and automation do not seem to greatly help in avoiding challenges.},
	author = {Jose Luis {de la Vara} and Borg, Markus and Wnuk, Krzysztof and Moonen, Leon}
}
