NM 23EV1123808

Faster Time to
Value
Accelerating process improvement with
the Automotive Process Framework
(APF)
Claudia Filpes, senior consultant
Erich Meier, director strategic initiatives

UL SOLUTIONS AND THE UL SOLUTIONS LOGO ARE TRADEMARKS OF UL LLC © 2023. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE COPIED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM UL
© 2023
LLC UL LLC.
AND ONLY All IN
Rights
ITSReserved.
ENTIRETY. THE DOCUMENT IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO CONVEY LEGAL OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL ADVICE. THE
INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS CORRECT TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF AT THE DATE OF ITS PUBLICATION.
 NM 23EV1123808

Meet the presenters

Claudia Filpes

• M.A. in media and communications

• Over five years of experience in automotive
development processes
• Process architect within the Automotive Process
Framework
 NM 23EV1123808

Meet the presenters

Erich Meier

• Ph.D. in computer science

• Over 20 years of experience in automotive,
aerospace/defense, and medical device
development processes
• Product owner of the Stages
process management solution
 NM 23EV1123808

The automotive standards challenge

• Automotive companies need to comply with a multitude of

standards in their product development, e.g.:
– ISO 26262 for Functional Safety
– ISO 21434 for Vehicle Cybersecurity
– ISO 21488 for Safety of the Intended Functionality (SOTIF)
– ISO 24089 for Software Update Management
– Automotive Software Process Improvement and Capability
Determination (SPICE) for system and software quality

• Defining the required processes typically takes 12-24

months and $1M+ (USD) of effort and investment.
 NM 23EV1123808

Example 1: Concept-level requirements for safety and

security – Typical situation encountered in industry
• Process flows
defined by single
SPICE framework SYS.1 – Requirements
Part of Automotive standards
elicitation
• Each standard with a
Part of ISO 26262 standard 3.7 – Functional safety
separate process
concept
owner
Part of ISO 21434 st 9.5 - Cybersecurity
andard
• Multiple documents,
concept
multiple topics
Part of ISO 21448
standard
5 – Functional and system
• Mis-alignment,
specifications
conflict,
re-work, and
confusion

5
 NM 23EV1123808

Example 1: Concept-level requirements for safety and

security – Integrated process approach

One activity meets f 3.7 – Functional safety

e
multiple process s th ts o concept
t n
ee e
requirements, mapped to m irem
multiple standards: qu 9.5 - Cybersecurity
re
Process: Define concept
concept-level
requirements

is an complies with
element of

SYS.1 – Requirements
5 – Functional and system elicitation
specifications
© 2023 UL LLC. All Rights Reserved.
6
 NM 23EV1123808

Example 2: Safety acceptance criteria for AI-enabled

autonomous vehicles
NIST AI Risk Management
ISO 21448 clause 6 Framework
• Acceptance Criteria for Advanced Driver

Emerging practice
Established practice
Assistance Systems and Autonomous • Sub-clause 1.2.1 – Risk tolerance
Vehicles (ADAS/AV) shall be defined and
used to derive validation targets. • Not prescriptive… but sets
requirements to define risk
tolerance.
• ISO 21448 provides guidance on options
for these decisions/derivations. • Can possibly be met with prior
work to achieve ISO 21448-6?

• An organization must make decisions

• Sub-clause 3.7 – Fairness with harmful
and formalize descriptions of acceptance
bias managed
criteria for ADAS/AV risk.
• Seems likely needed for ADAS/AV
safety.
• Review committee
• Formal sign-off • Seems not directly addressed by
• Change management ISO 21448.
• Documentation repository • Possibly a space for new process
elements?
7
 NM 23EV1123808

Example 2: Safety acceptance criteria for AI-enabled

autonomous vehicles

“Separate process” à “Just do both together” à

• Risk of double work • It doesn’t just happen…
• Risk of conflicting, • … it requires understanding,
un-coordinated outcomes. conflict, compromise and decision.
8
 NM 23EV1123808

Example 2: Safety acceptance criteria for AI-enabled

autonomous vehicles
Future process-based
Process for determining acceptance criteria standard
• For company XYZ
• For project 123 • Review committee
……………. • Formal sign-off
• Change management
……………. • Documentation repository
…………….

contributes to compliant to contributes

to

aligned to
 NM 23EV1123808

Process metamodel WHY

• Policies
• Standards
• Regulations

WHO WHAT WHEN

• Roles • Value streams • Lifecycles
• Teams • Work products • Phases
• Systems • Activities • Milestones

HOW
• Practices
• Checklists
• Tools
• Templates
etc.
 NM 23EV1123808

Process framework WHY

• Policies
• Standards
• Regulations

WHO WHAT WHEN

• Roles • Value streams • Lifecycles
• Teams • Work products • Phases
• Systems • Activities • Milestones

HOW
• Practices
• Checklists
• Tools
• Templates
etc.
 NM 23EV1123808

The Automotive Process Framework

Forty-five processes for system, software,

hardware, and mechanical development

Complete mapping to ISO 26262, ISO 21434,

and Automotive SPICE project scopes

Fifty-seven templates, practices, and checklists

supporting ISO 26262

Source: https://www.methodpark.com/stages/branchen/prozessmanagement-fuer-automotive.html

+ +
12
 NM 23EV1123808

Demo

13
 NM 23EV1123808

Automotive Process Framework:

Learn more
https://www.stages.digital/stages/solut
ions/automotive-process-
framework.html

Stages product:
https://www.stages.digital

UL Solutions automotive offerings:

https://www.ul.com/industries/automot
ive-and-mobility

14
 NM 23EV1123808

Questions?

Erich Meier, director, Strategic Initiatives

Erich.Meier@UL.com

Claudia Filpes, senior consultant

Claudia.Filpes@ul.com

UL.com/Solutions

15
 NM 23EV1123808

Thank you

UL.com/Solutions

© 2023 UL LLC. All Rights Reserved.