Components for Implementing Tool Interface Requirements in Automotive Domain

Abstract

The modern automotive ecosystem demands seamless interaction between electronic control units (ECUs) and diagnostic tools. Tool interface requirements play a pivotal role in enabling effective diagnostics, repair, and maintenance of vehicle systems. This paper presents a comprehensive view of the environment required for implementing tool interface requirements for diagnostic tools. It covers essential components including the Application Controls Systems Team, Tool Integration Strategies, Global Tool Interface Standard (GTIS) Specification, validation by the Central Tools Validation team, and the final implementation and testing processes. The paper highlights each component’s function, discusses integration strategies, and evaluates the pros and cons of this structured development environment

Introduction

Overview

With the growing complexity of modern vehicle control systems, efficient diagnostics, configuration, and servicing are essential. Diagnostic tools serve as the interface between service personnel and vehicle ECUs (Electronic Control Units). To ensure reliability and compatibility, standardized tool interface specifications—such as GTIS—are developed through a structured process involving multiple cross-functional teams.

I. Key Components of the Diagnostic Tool Interface Ecosystem

A. Controls System Team

• Translates service requirements into embedded control logic using tools like MATLAB Simulink.

• Produces the Technical Profile Document with functional and non-functional requirements, parameter settings, failure modes, and safety requirements (e.g., ISO 26262).

• Conducts FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) to define safety goals and classify risks (ASIL levels).

B. Tool Integration Strategies

• Acts as a bridge between control logic and service tools.

• Uses structured templates, version control, and traceability mechanisms (with tools like DOORS, Polarian) to convert technical profiles into interface requirements.

• Outputs include traceability matrices, audit trails, and impact analysis reports.

C. Global Tool Interface Standard (GTIS)

• A comprehensive guideline defining how diagnostic interfaces must function over communication protocols (e.g., UDS, XCP).

• Standardizes structure, semantics, and formatting of tool interface requirements for consistency and global reuse.

D. Central Tool Interface Validation

• Validates requirements against GTIS for feasibility, consistency, and modularity.

• Provides standard templates and collaborates with integration teams to refine requirements.

E. Tool Interface Implementation and Testing

• Service tool teams implement features based on validated requirements.

• Testing teams ensure functionality, performance, and reliability in both simulated and real ECU environments.

II. Development Workflow

• Starts with business or system-level requirements.

• Control teams define technical profiles.

• Tool integration teams format and trace requirements.

• Validation teams ensure compliance with GTIS.

• Implementation teams develop and test tools.

• GTIS acts as the foundation throughout, ensuring integration, standardization, and scalability.

III. Pros and Cons

? Pros

• Standardization: Ensures consistent and reliable interfaces across systems and suppliers.

• Cross-Team Collaboration: Reduces miscommunication and rework.

• Traceability & Compliance: Supports ISO 26262 and FMEA-based safety tracking.

• Reusability: Saves time and cost across projects.

• Early Issue Detection: Minimizes integration risks early in development.

? Cons

• High Initial Effort: GTIS development is resource-intensive.

• Complex Change Management: Small updates may have broad system impacts.

• Learning Curve: Understanding GTIS and associated tools requires training.

• Tool Dependency: Relies on advanced requirement management tools.

• Reduced Agility: Formal review cycles can slow down small iterations.

Conclusion

A robust environment for implementing tool interface requirements is vital in modern automotive diagnostic ecosystems. Through well-defined components such as control system design, structured integration strategies, standard specifications, centralized validation and rigorous implementation/testing, automotive OEMs can deliver scalable, maintainable, and high-quality diagnostic tools. While the process demands strong cross-functional collaboration and adherence to standards, the benefits of consistency, traceability, and reduced rework make it a worthwhile investment. These components defined in this process not only limited to Controls Integration but also integrates Data, Platform, Presentation and Process integration [5] Future enhancements may include AI-driven validation and automated requirement transformation tools to further streamline the development lifecycle.

References

[1] H M. Kienle and H. A. Muller, \"Requirements of Software Visualization Tools: A Literature Survey,\" 2007 4th IEEE International Workshop on Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis, Banff, AB, Canada, 2007, pp. 2-9, doi: 10.1109/VISSOF.2007.4290693. keywords: {Software tools; Visualization;Scalability;Softwarequality;Softwaremaintenance;Reverseengineering;Conferenceproceedings;Usability;Informationfiltering;Information filters} [2] Title: Assessment of Safety Standards for Automotive Electronic Control Systems Creator(s): Van Eikema Hommes, QiCorporate Creator(s) : John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (U.S.)Corporate Contributor(s) : United States. Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Published Date: 2016-06-01.Report Number DOT-VNTSC-NHTSA-13-03;DOT HS 812 285; URL :https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/12302 [3] Lipol, Lefayet Sultan, and Jahirul Haq. \"Risk analysis method: FMEA/FMECA in the organizations.\"International Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences 11.5 (2011): 74-82 [4] Thomas and B. A. Nejmeh, \"Definitions of tool integration for environments,\" in IEEE Software, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 29-35, March 1992, doi: 10.1109/52.120599. [5] Fredrik Asplund, Martin Törngren,The discourse on tool integration beyond technology, a literature survey, Journal of Systems and Software, Volume 106,2015,Pages 117-131,ISSN 0164-1212, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.04.082. [6] Sharma, Kapil Dev, and Shobhit Srivastava. \"Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) implementation: a literature review.\"Journal of Advance Research in Aeronautics and Space Science 5.1 (2018): 1-17. [7] Assawinjaipetch, Panuwat, et al. \"Unified Diagnostic Services Protocol Implementation in an Engine Control Unit.\" (2013) [8] M. Rodriguez, M. Piattini and C. Ebert, \"Software Verification and Validation Technologies and Tools,\" in IEEE Software, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 13-24, March-April 2019, doi: 10.1109/MS.2018.2883354. [9] Allmann, Christian, Lydia Winkler, and Thorsten Kölzow. \"The requirements engineering gap in the oem-supplier relationship.\" Journal of Universal Knowledge Management 1.2 (2006): 103-111. [10] A. K. Thurimella and D. Janzen, \"Metadoc Feature Modeler: A Plug-in for IBM Rational DOORS,\" 2011 15th International Software Product Line Conference, Munich, Germany, 2011, pp. 313-322, doi: 10.1109/SPLC.2011.17.

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Anand Wanjari. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.