System archetypes as a methodological basis for ensuring the functional safety of hardware and software systems

Oxana Bezhaeva


This paper discusses the methodological foundations of ensuring the functional safety of hardware and software complexes. The conceptual basis of the research is a systematic combination of proactive, active and reactive approaches to the management of different nature defects. The consideration of defects as a variety of complex systems creates a methodological basis for the scientifically based adaptation of approaches, methods and models that have proven themselves in solving problems of complex systems management of a different nature in the field of functional safety management. System archetypes are a concentrated form of representation of problem situations encountered in the management of complex systems of different nature. The description of problem situations through system archetypes contributes to its structuring, creates prerequisites for its adequate perception and, as a result, the development of rational approaches to its resolution. The results obtained in the study of structured problem situations form is the basis for the construction of various degrees of formalized sign models (from cognitive to mathematical). The presence of such models allows us to assess the consequences of various organizational decisions, in other words, create a basis for preventing the occurrence of latent defects of organizational nature, which entail the most negative consequences. The paper considers the content of system archetypes in relation to the problem of ensuring of the functional safety of hardware and software systems. Models of system archetypes are proposed in relation to the problem of ensuring functional safety. The proposed approach is the basis for the representation of cognitive models of a problem situation by means of system archetypes.

Full Text:

PDF (Russian)


J. Reason, E. Hollnagel, J. Paries, “Revisiting the “Swiss Cheese” Model of Accidents”, EEC Note No. 13/06. European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation, October 2006, 25 p.

Brooks, Frederick P., “No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering”. Computer, Vol. 20, No. 4 (April 1987)

pp. 10-19. (DOI: 10.1109/MC.1987.1663532)

Skott Berkun. “Iskusstvo upravlenija IT-proektami”. Izdatel'stvo: Piter, 2007 g. 400c.

G. Klein, D. Snowden, L.P. Chew, “Anticipatory Thinking” in Proc. International NDM Conf. (Eds. K. Mosier & U. Fischer), Pacific Grove, CA, June 2007, pp. 1-7 .

R. Silva, M. Carvalho, “Anticipatory Failure Determination (AFD) for product reliability analysis: A comparison between AFD and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) for identifying potential failure modes” in Federal Technological University of Paraná (UTFPR), Curitiba, Brazil, January 2019, 24р. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-78075-7_12

Gvozdev V., Munasipov R., Bezhaeva O., Akhmetova D. "Construction of a multi-connected object model based on the joint use of data and expert evaluation". Design ontology. - 2019. - Vol. 9, No. 3 (33). - p. 361-368

Gvozdev V. E., Bezhaeva O. Ya., Nasyrova R. A. "Models of errors at the pre-design stage of the development of information and computing systems components". Design ontology. - 2020. - Vol. 10, No. 1 (35). - pp. 73-86.

Lipaev V. V. "Reliability of software tools". M: Sinteg, 1998, 232s.

Lipaev V. V. "Reliability and functional safety of real-time program complexes". M: Institute of System Programming of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2013, 176c.

Donella H. Meadows. “Thinking in Systems: A Primer”. Chelsea Green Publishing, 2008, 240 p.

Raikov, A. N. "Convergent management and decision support". Moscow: IKAR Publishing House, 2009. - 245 p.

Peter Senge. "The fifth discipline". Moscow: Olymp-Business, 2003. 408 p.

Myers G. J. Software reliability. Moscow: Mir Publishing House, 1980. - 359 p.

CHAOS Report. The Standish Group International, Inc., 2018, 68 p. -Available:


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Abava  Кибербезопасность MoNeTec 2024

ISSN: 2307-8162