A mutually agreed development interface agreement provides the customer and supplier with the information they need to properly plan and execute work activities and products that lead to a safe functional end product. As simple as it may seem, there seems to be a big difference in the way these agreements are presented and implemented, which could create problems or subsequent concerns in the project. One of the most important aspects of the IAD is to determine who is responsible for the conduct of activities, the authorisation of work products, support for the development or carrying out of activities, information from the other party on the necessary information and, if necessary, the consultation of the activity or work product (the known rasic). The IAD should also detail what the expected work product is and how it should be completed (if a particular format is required, an evaluation is made by the client or a third party, etc.). Tags: DIA, Functional Security Requirements, Latent Fault Metric, Security Plan The Development Interface Agreement (IAD) is the most important document to ensure successful planning and achievement of a program`s functional security objectives. This is a tool and a record of what is expected of each party, and should indicate the exact means for completion. I really like to read on this page, it holds great blog posts. While it may not be possible to conclude an IAD prior to acquisition, it should be completed as soon as the program begins. If this is delayed, it can be accepted by each part of the different expectations and the project might not be properly supported to ensure success.
This could result in time problems, resource problems and potentially creative concerns. If the IAD is completed before or at the time of purchase (i.e. understood and mutually agreed), the project can receive adequate support from the client and supplier and everyone can plan and support the project effectively in order to reach a successful and timely conclusion. Very useful for me to understand the relevant documents of ISO26262 Are some of the problems and concerns I have noticed within DIAs in the sector: avoiding these errors, the development interface agreement will be an informative and imaginative tool to carry out functional security in a project. An effective IAD will guide the entire program and improve the working relationship between the customer and the supplier, while providing the end customer with a secure product. If the IAD is completed correctly, it is a very important tool for determining the status and success of functional security within a program. If the IAD is only used at the beginning of a project as a box check and is not verified throughout the project to ensure that each party is meeting its commitment correctly, there are elements that may be missed or not completely completed. This is probably the most missed part of the IAD. Without identifying target values at the beginning of the program, design requirements and hardware component requirements may be misidentified. This may well raise concerns about the successful completion of a safe product. I am a strong supporter of common documentation, especially for functional security.
The joint documentation gives credibility to the expected results of the project and helps to ensure that the document is fully, properly and fully understood. The IAD should not be written individually for each project or supplier; however, they should be reviewed and cut accordingly. Many of the DAS clients I have seen are a standard model sent to the supplier that does not take into account the actual requirements of the project and the role of the respective supplier. The customer should be careful to verify the IAD with regard to the specific services required by each provider. The customer must indicate what they expect from the supplier and what documents and information are available to the supplier to respond to these requests.