Steering, governance & risk transparency
Situation
“Our risk management exists on paper — in daily work we steer by gut feeling.”
Risk management exists formally, but is not effective in everyday project work. Responsibilities and decision paths are unclear or non-transparent. Late concept and design changes drive integration and change costs. FMEA is performed sporadically, not as a living steering instrument. Steering happens more by gut feeling than through a small number of clear KPIs and a living risk landscape.
These two offerings address the situation most directly. We recommend requesting both — together they form the most robust picture.
High-level assessment of safety concepts and compliance risks.
A compact view of HARA and safety concepts, FMEA/FTA approaches and compliance risks against the standards relevant to your product — including an assessment of gaps, risks and priorities. Useful as a basis for management decisions, audit preparation or scope alignment.
Transparency on structure, consistency and continuity of requirements.
Analysis of structure, consistency and continuity of requirements through architecture and test — including safety-relevant parts. Result: a clear picture of where traceability holds and where it needs reinforcement.
Useful to add depending on the project situation. Drop into the cart if needed.
Clarity on viability, interfaces and critical architectural decisions.
A condensed view of your safety concept, safety artefacts and targeted next steps.
Focus on fault sources, risks and robustness gaps during integration.
