Thank you for Subscribing to Auto Business Outlook Weekly Brief
Implementing functional safety in the automotive industry today is not without its challenges, especially for Tier 1 suppliers. Major OEMs are looking for an ever-more-stringent time-to-market, with the consequent request for suppliers to meet ever-more challenging deadlines. In addition, the developed product must be economical, technologically advanced, small, and, last but not least, completely safe. In the context of the battery electric vehicle (BEV), functional safety becomes even more complex due to its interactions and interference with the domain under the control of the electrical safety standard.
Under all these assumptions, it is almost impossible to follow a complete functional safety process, and more and more companies are considering alternative routes, parallelizing processes as much as possible, or evaluating shortcuts. And here comes the dilemma: Is it better to follow the process to the letter or use shortcuts to meet customer deadlines? But above all, are we sure that shortcuts really shorten time? The Dangers of Shortcuts First of all, the issue should be moral, and this in itself should block any intention. However, beyond that, shortcuts can have several serious consequences, such as increased risk of accidents, recalls, broken components at different production steps, and other problems that can lead to significant financial costs and, last but not least, damage to the company's reputation. Harming the company's reputation is the worst risk that should always be taken into consideration and thus avoided. Losing the trust of customers would unleash a dangerous domino effect: from the difficulty in securing new orders to the consequent loss of valuable employees and knowledge, ending with the inevitable bad publicity on the job market and making employers increasingly hungry for trained technicians. Finding and retaining capable and motivated employees, especially those with a functional safety background, will become increasingly difficult in the coming years; therefore, every company should start changing its mindset and increase awareness of this risk. The Most Popular Shortcut: Skipping Tests Reducing the test campaign or modifying the scope of the tests is the most requested shortcut by company management to meet customer deadlines. “Finding and retaining capable and motivated employees, especially those with a functional safety background, will become increasingly difficult in the coming years; therefore, every company should start changing its mindset and increase awareness of this risk.” In my work experience, I have had to deal with this request several times, listening to the most varied reasons and excuses. I haven't always been able to stem this request, but the results have certainly confirmed how right I was in opposing it with all my might. Yes, because ISO 26262 does not require anything strange or mystical: the request for full validation at all SYS/HW/SW levels for complex (and dangerous) systems is the result of the desire to prevent all the previously mentioned risks, and this should be the will of all top management. The developed system should be tested in its entirety, incrementally, considering all requirements, both customer and own, because a reduced test campaign (carried out only on the own test bench) will certainly result in an exaggerated number of bugs during the vehicle validation made by the customer. This is because the external environment, the other control units, the unpredictable use of the user, and the errors of the other subsystems will all be sources of disturbance and will certainly trigger errors in the system. For this reason, I firmly believe that spending the time necessary to carry out a full validation actually saves time instead of carrying out many small test campaigns to chase after the bug fixes that will inevitably emerge during the customer's tests. The Recipe Against Harmful Shortcuts Unfortunately, there is no single truth. There are many ways organizations can try to balance security and time constraints when implementing functional safety, but this is my personal recipe. Improve the Safety Culture It's not a cliche: introductory training for new hires, advanced courses with certifying bodies provided to all employees involved, including middle and top management, and coaching with the functional safety team are all ways to prevent the urge to look for dangerous shortcuts. Start from the Beginning Functional safety must be considered and discussed (including with customers) starting from the RFQ (request for quote) phase. This ensures that all parties are on the same page, that safety is a priority from the start, and that no surprises will come too late in the development. The importance of Proof of Concept The POC phase (or proto-A phase) is increasingly abandoned by OEMs because it is considered useless and expensive, but it should be re-evaluated because it would allow many of the problems to be anticipated, especially in terms of functional safety. The Right Skills The functional safety team must be made up of experts with solid technical foundations, divided by area of expertise, to technically validate and support the product development and not just the process formally. This ensures that the team is well-equipped to handle any safety concerns that may arise. Cooperation, not struggle for survival The Functional Safety team should be seen as a support to the company, as a help, as a friend to ask for a hand, not as a troublemaker to whom you need to give a sop, or hide the problems. Simplify Without Cutting The testing process can and should be reviewed considering the available tools and the complexities of the products, but without losing sight of the fact that not testing today means testing more tomorrow. By simplifying the process, companies can reduce the risk of errors without cutting corners. Be Realistic and Transparent Companies should set realistic deadlines, allocate sufficient resources, and, above all, be transparent with their customers if requests are impossible without taking shortcuts. This ensures that both parties are aware of the risks and can make informed decisions. In the end, the "better safe than sorry" philosophy always wins.