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. An interface agreement is a document that defines an interface between two teams/locations/functional responsibilities. An interface plan is an agreement between the parties to the interface regarding the expected access to “contract objects” before unloading and delivery – for example for the control of underwater calculators, umbilical cord, etc. Note that the project interface management plan is a basic project document that defines how interfaces are managed, and it is described here. 그렇지 않다. 사실 위에 명 된 용은 in the context 경 다. The interface agreement is similar to the interface document. Some contractors may refer to an agreed (and possibly signed) interface problem as an interface agreement. 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.).
It can usually contain (or refer to) battery limitation plans, interface matrix or interface registry, for example. 어느 정도의 범위 내에서 개발 활동이 이뤄지는지에 따라 달라질 수는 있다. 아래 그림을 참고해보자. A: Authorization (누구의을 득해야 하는가?) ISO 26262 Part 1. Vocabular의 정의를 살펴보면, 고객과 급자 간에 활, 근거, 작업출물 간에 책임을 명확히 명하는 것라고 되있다. 그러나 2018년까지 지켜보니, 완벽하지는 않더라도 분명히 위와 같은 내용들을 작성해가며 발전시키고 있는 것은 분명하다. It is very useful to use the IAD as a basis for the development of the security plan, followed by regular audits throughout the program to ensure that each party`s commitments are met. This will help to enable open communication between the two parties and support the goal of a successful functional 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.
Jennifer Giangrande has worked on alternative energy projects, clean commercial vehicles and, more recently, on the functional safety of propulsion systems. Jennifer has a BSME from Lawrence University of Technology and an MSME from the University of Oakland. Here are some of the problems and concerns I`ve noticed within the industry: more used by stakeholders who “own” part of a project rather than between contractors (who refer to their contract) – but see the green indication below.