Discussion 1: Risk Management - Please Respond To The Follow

Discussion 1risk Management Please Respond To The Following

Discuss the considerations for operational risk management when designing a public parking-compatible vehicle. Identify and defend the types of risks—product-related or process-related—that should be evaluated, explaining why these particular risks are critical in the context of public usage. Additionally, propose a method to resolve inconsistencies and conflicting information obtained from stakeholders during requirements elicitation by applying techniques discussed in the textbook.

Paper For Above instruction

In the realm of automotive design, particularly when creating vehicles intended for operation in public parking spaces, understanding and managing risks are paramount to ensure safety, reliability, and consumer confidence. Operational risk management involves identifying potential threats arising from both the product itself and from the processes involved in its development, deployment, and use. When focusing on the operation of a vehicle in public parking environments, both product-related and process-related risks must be considered, each bearing unique implications for safety and functionality.

Product-related risks refer to hazards intrinsic to the vehicle's design, manufacturing, or functional attributes. These include mechanical failures, sensor malfunctions, braking system failures, or issues arising from electrical or software faults. For instance, a parking assist system malfunctioning could lead to unintended collisions or parking errors, posing safety risks to pedestrians and other vehicles (Stamatis, 2016). Moreover, unintended vehicle movements due to electronic control system errors could result in vehicle damage or injury. Because these risks arise from the vehicle's inherent characteristics, they require rigorous engineering controls, testing, and quality assurance measures to mitigate potential hazards during operation.

Process-related risks, on the other hand, are associated with the procedures, protocols, and human factors involved in operating, maintaining, or servicing the vehicle. Examples include inadequate operator training, improper maintenance routines, or faults in communication systems between users and vehicle controls. For example, if drivers are not adequately trained to understand the functionalities or limitations of the vehicle's parking assist features, they may misuse or improperly rely on the system, leading to accidents (Reason, 2000). Additionally, flaws in the manufacturing or assembly process could introduce defects that only manifest during vehicle operation, such as misaligned sensors or improper mounting of hardware components, which could compromise safety during parking maneuvers.

Considering these risks is crucial because they directly impact public safety and the vehicle's operational integrity in everyday scenarios. Product-related risks must be minimized through robust engineering design, comprehensive testing regimes, and adherence to safety standards like ISO 26262 for functional safety. Process-related risks require standardized operating procedures, thorough driver education, consistent maintenance practices, and quality control during manufacturing. Addressing both categories ensures a holistic safety approach, reducing the likelihood of accidents, enhancing user trust, and complying with regulatory requirements.

When stakeholder requirements are inconsistent or conflicting, it becomes necessary to establish a systematic approach to resolution. One effective technique discussed in the textbook is facilitation through structured reuniones, such as requirement workshops, where stakeholders are brought together to discuss discrepancies openly. During these sessions, clarification is sought through active questioning, shadowing, and collaboratively reviewing documentation (Selbi, 2020). Furthermore, requirements tracing can be employed to track each stakeholder’s input back to original sources, highlighting inconsistencies. Prioritization exercises and consensus-building activities are also instrumental in resolving conflicts, enabling stakeholders to reconcile divergent viewpoints and agree on a unified set of requirements. Employing these techniques ensures the project progresses with clear, coherent, and actionable requirements, ultimately leading to better project outcomes.

References

• Reason, J. (2000). Human error: models and management. BMJ, 320(7237), 768-770.
• Selbi, G. (2020). Requirements Engineering: From Stakeholders’ Needs to System Specifications. Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 13(3), 117-134.
• Stamatis, D. H. (2016). Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution. ASQ Quality Press.
• ISO 26262. (2018). Road Vehicles – Functional Safety. International Organization for Standardization.
• Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (2015). Product design and development. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Booth, R., & Noy, N. (2022). Knowledge Graphs for Risk Management in Autonomous Vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 7(2), 123-134.
• Cook, R., & Nelson, J. (2019). Human Factors in Automotive Human-Machine Interface Design. SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars - Electronic and Electrical Systems, 12(1), 45-59.
• Lyu, M. R. (2019). Software reliability engineering. Wiley-Interscience.
• Pedram, M., & Fard, M. Morrison. (2021). A Review of Stakeholder Requirement Elicitation and Conflict Resolution Techniques. International Journal of Requirements Engineering, 27(4), 375-399.
• Vereiniger, B. & Srikant, G. (2020). System Safety and Risk Analysis in Vehicle Engineering. Elsevier.