Analysis of the impact of the project management quality on the state of functional safety of hardware and software systems based on the system archetype “limits to success”

The scientific idea of this work is the formalization of the known thesis that there is a direct relationship between the quality of project management and consumer properties of the resulting product. Hardware and software complexes are a kind of complex systems, which proves the possibility of scientific adaptation of well-known approaches used in the research of complex systems of a different nature to the field of ensuring the functional safety of the hardware and software systems. One sign of this "relationship" of software and hardware systems with complex systems of different nature are typical problem situations arising in the implementation of projects. In the publications, at the declarative level, typical problem situations that occurs in managing of complex systems of different nature are described, and are called system archetypes. In this paper, on the example of the system archetype “limits of success’, a formal approach to the analysis of the compliance of the quality of hardware and software complex project management a with the state of the control object is proposed.The paper proposes a new systemic combination of models and approaches known in system analysis, which made it possible to increase the degree of formalization of research focused on assessing the impact of project management quality on the functional safety of hardware and software systems.

1. Lipaev V.V. Functional safety of software. M.: Sinteg. 2004:348. (In Russ)

2. Lipaev V.V. Reliability and functional safety of real-time software complexes. M.: Institute for System Programming RAS; 2013:207. (In Russ)

3. GOST R МEК 61508-3 – 2012. Functional safety of electrical, electronic, programmable electronic safety-related systems. Software requirements.

4. ESA PSS 05-11. Guide to software quality assurance.

5. Senge P.M. Fifth discipline. M.: Olimp-Business. 2003:408. (In Russ)

6. Meadows D.H. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Chelsea Green Publishing. 2008:240.

7. Raikov A.N. Convergent management and decision support. M.: Publishing house IKAR. 2009:244. (In Russ)

8. Reason J., Hollnagel E., Paries J. Revisiting the «Swiss Cheese» Model of Accidents, European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation. 2006;13(06):25.

9. Avramchuk E.F., Vavilov A.A. Technology of system modeling. M.: Mashinostroenie. 1988:520. (In Russ)

10. Milosevic D.Z. A set of tools for project management. M: DMK-Pres. 2008:736. (In Russ)

11. DeMarco T. The human factor: successful projects and teams. Publishing house: Symbol-Plus. 2014:288.

12. Gvozdev V.E., Guzairov M.B., Ilyasov B.G., Kolodenkova A.E. Statistical research of territorial systems. M: Mashinostroenie. 2008:187. (In Russ)

13. Pelaez C.E, Bowles J.B. Using fuzzy cognitive maps as a system model for failure modes and effects analysis. Information Sciences. 1996;88(1):177-199.

14. Gvozdev V.E., Bezhaeva O.Ya., Blinova D.V., Akhmetova D.R. The Model of the Innovative Project as the Multivariable Control Object. Advances in Intelligent Systems Research. 2020;174:278-282.

15. Gvozdev V.E., Bezhaeva O.Ya., Akhmetova D.R., Safinova G.R. Formation of project management model parameters based on linearization of functional dependencies. Design Ontology. 2020;10(4):527-539. (In Russ)

16. Gvozdev V.E., Munasipov R.A., Bezhaeva O.Ya., Akhmetova D. Construction of a model of a multivariable object based on sharing of measured data and expert estimates. Design Ontology, 2019;9(3):361-368. (In Russ)

17. Pugachev V.S. Probability Theory and Mathematical Statistics. M.: Fizmallit. 2002:496. (In Russ)

18. Gaskarov D.V., Golinkevich T.A., Mozgalevsky A.V. Forecasting the technical condition and reliability of electronic equipment. M.: Sovetskoe radio. 1974:223. (In Russ)