ISO 26262-3

Buy the published 2018 second edition

Concept work within functional safety

The ISO public description identifies item definition, hazard analysis and risk assessment, and the functional safety concept. Its scope concerns safety-related electrical/electronic systems in series-production road vehicles, excluding mopeds. It does not address nominal system performance.

For buying, describe the proposed function and its vehicle context before asking for an analysis price. Identify which organisation can answer questions about users, operating situations and interfaces. An analyst needs an agreed starting point; leaving the item boundary vague can generate incomparable proposals.

Define the concept-phase deliverables

The table is a commercial responsibility aid. It does not perform a hazard analysis, assign an automotive safety integrity level or prescribe safety goals. Those are project-specific technical activities for the responsible team.

Questions before commissioning a concept study

• Does the proposal identify the same item boundary as the buyer's brief?
• Which assumptions will be supplied by the customer and which will be developed in the service?
• Who participates in review and resolves disagreements?
• What records and editable deliverables are included at handover?
• How are changes to vehicle use, interfaces or the proposed function handled?

Compare bidders on preparation, workshops, review and handover as well as analysis time. A service with fewer included review activities may leave more coordination to the buyer. Make that responsibility explicit so the project schedule reflects the actual work.

Example: an early vehicle assistance function

A vehicle supplier asks two consultants to quote concept work for a new assistance function. One proposal assumes a narrowly defined electronic item; the other includes several vehicle-level interfaces. The buyer prepares a shared boundary description and identifies the vehicle team's input owners.

Both consultants then quote against the same assignment, including review points and handover records. The final contract states how unresolved interface assumptions will be handled. The example illustrates purchasing scope; it does not evaluate the function's safety or choose its analysis results.

Relationship to later development and cybersecurity

Part 3 is one part of a larger functional safety series. Define who will take its outputs into later system, hardware or software work instead of asking a concept-service supplier to silently cover the entire lifecycle. The ISO series package page identifies those separate part subjects.

Where cybersecurity is also relevant, give that assignment its own scope and responsible team. Coordinate shared product identities and interfaces, but do not relabel a functional safety concept report as a cybersecurity assessment.

Frequently asked buying questions

Does Part 3 cover all product development?

The verified title is the concept phase. Determine the wider document and service package from the project work rather than treating one part as the complete series.

Can this guide assign an integrity level?

No. It helps define the buying brief. A project-specific analysis and the responsible technical decision-makers are needed for that outcome.

Does a revision project make the 2018 document a draft?

The records distinguish the published 2018 edition from the successor under development. Preserve that distinction when ordering and agreeing the assessment basis.

Related guidance

Read automotive cybersecurity purchasing and IEC functional safety framework guidance.

Explore more standards buying guides

Browse standards by reference and subject to compare related document choices.