Who should handle Functional Safety in an organisation?

Establishing an effective FuSa framework within an organisation is a complex challenge. It requires more than technical expertise; it calls for thoughtful integration of roles and responsibilities.

This article, prepared in close cooperation with Krzysztof Gomułka, Senior Functional Safety Engineer at Spyrosoft, explores different models of implementing FuSa and offers recommendations on creating a sustainable and effective safety culture.

Keep reading to find the approach that best suits your organisation’s needs.

The role of Functional Safety in organisations

Functional Safety should function as a shared “operating system,” seamlessly integrated across departments. Every team member should contribute to ensuring that products are safe for their intended use. This shared accountability is crucial for embedding Functional Safety into the company’s DNA.

However, how an organisation allocates FuSa responsibilities depends on its maturity, size, and product complexity. There are three common approaches, and we’ll take a look at the pros and cons of each. Lastly, we’ll present the optimal approach that we recommend.

Centralised responsibility with a dedicated FuSa engineer

In smaller organisations or those newly introduced to Functional Safety, it is common to assign all FuSa responsibilities to a single dedicated engineer. This model ensures that one individual is accountable for compliance with Functional Safety standards.

This approach offers focused expertise, with a single specialist ensuring a consistent and comprehensive understanding of Functional Safety requirements. It also provides clear ownership, enabling swift action on compliance tasks without the need for extensive coordination across teams.

However, reliance on one individual comes with challenges. The absence of this engineer due to illness, leave, or turnover can significantly disrupt progress. Additionally, this model limits organisational growth by curtailing knowledge-sharing and collaborative problem-solving. A single point of responsibility also increases the risk of oversights, especially when addressing complex performance-based standards like ISO 26262 or IEC 61508, which require innovative, context-specific solutions.

While this approach can be a practical starting point, it is not sustainable for organisations aiming to foster a strong safety culture over the long term.

Distributed responsibility with trained specialists

As organisations grow and their products become more complex, responsibility for FuSa often shifts from a single individual to a distributed model. In this approach, the FuSa engineer transitions into a role of mentorship and coordination, working with trained specialists across teams to ensure safety principles are consistently applied.

This distributed model promotes a collaborative safety culture, reducing risks associated with single-point failure. Cross-functional collaboration enhances problem-solving and fosters innovative solutions. Furthermore, team members can review each other’s work, ensuring quality.

For organisations managing complex projects, a central Functional Safety department can support this model by maintaining consistency across teams. For instance, projects involving hardware, software, and systems often require FuSa specialists at different levels. A central department can harmonise these efforts, ensuring alignment with best practices and adherence to safety standards.

Nevertheless, traceablity remains essential. In safety-critical projects, all steps and decisions necessitate precise identification of roles, responsibilities, and decision-makers. Structured supervision is crucial to avoid ambiguity and ensure that safety standards are met effectively within the distributed framework.

External supervision combined with training

Some organisations opt to complement their internal efforts by engaging external Functional Safety experts. These external specialists can bring advanced knowledge, lead key activities, or provide targeted training to internal teams.

This approach offers access to cutting-edge expertise and fresh perspectives, making it particularly useful for addressing resource gaps or specialised needs. Additionally, external consultants can conduct objective reviews and audits, ensuring unbiased evaluation of safety work products.

However, success with this model requires strategic and collaborative partnerships. External consultants should function as mentors who enhance the organisation’s internal capabilities. The aim is to balance external guidance with the development of in-house ownership of FuSa processes.

What’s the optimal approach?

The optimal approach depends on organisational size, project complexity, and maturity in functional safety practices. Below are some general recommendations:

1. Start small: for new or small organisations, begin with a dedicated FuSa Engineer to establish foundational knowledge and processes.
2. Scale with growth: As complexity increases, distribute responsibility across teams to promote collaboration and resilience.
3. Establish a central FuSa department: In large organisations with multiple safety-critical projects, a centralised department ensures consistency and supervision.
4. Foster a safety culture: Leadership should recognise and reward functional safety efforts. Management support is critical for sustaining focus on safety initiatives.

Ultimately, FuSa principles should be embedded throughout the organisation. They must be understood not only by Safety Engineers but also by all project team members. This integration ensures that functional safety is not just a compliance exercise but a shared commitment to delivering safe and reliable products

By adopting a tailored approach, organisations can ensure compliance, mitigate risks, and build a resilient culture of safety. Functional Safety is not just a technical discipline; it is a collective responsibility that underpins the success and reliability of modern systems.