Functional Safety vs. Conventional Hardware Development: What’s the Difference?

Why Functional Safety Requires More Than Just Good Engineering

In a world where electronic systems control everything from car brakes to factory robots, safety isn’t just a feature — it’s a regulatory obligation. While conventional hardware design focuses on performance, cost, and time-to-market, functional safety (FuSa) adds another layer: ensuring the system behaves safely even under fault conditions.

In this article, we compare traditional hardware development with functional safety–driven design, highlighting where processes diverge — and why it matters for automotive, industrial, medical, and aerospace sectors.

What Is Functional Safety?

Functional safety refers to a system’s ability to detect, manage, and mitigate hardware or software faults that could lead to hazardous events. It’s defined by standards like:

• ISO 26262 – Automotive functional safety
• IEC 61508 – General safety of electronic systems
• ISO 13849 / IEC 62061 – Industrial machinery
• IEC 60601-1 – Medical electrical equipment

These standards define processes, documentation, and verification requirements for hardware and software systems that could impact human life or critical infrastructure.

Key Differences in Workflow

Architecture Requirements for Safety

In functional safety, the hardware architecture often includes:

• Redundancy: Dual-channel inputs, mirrored microcontrollers
• Safety monitors: External watchdogs, voltage monitors, temperature sensors
• Diagnostics: Built-in self-tests (BIST), analog/digital plausibility checks
• Degraded operation modes: Safe states when faults occur

In a conventional system, these are rarely needed unless performance or reliability demands them.

Verification and Validation (V&V) Practices

Conventional Projects:

• Functional validation in lab
• Performance measurement and thermal stress tests
• EMC and regulatory testing

Functional Safety Projects:

• Unit-level fault injection (short/open pins, bitflips)
• Fault tree analysis (FTA)
• Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA)
• Fault-Metric evaluation: FIT rates, SPFM, LFM
• Traceability between requirements → design → test cases

Real-World Impact of Safety Engineering

Without functional safety, a single fault could result in catastrophic damage or loss of life.

Costs and Complexity

Companies that don’t plan for safety early often find themselves needing a complete redesign.

Should You Design for Functional Safety?

Ask these questions:

• Can system failure harm a person?
• Will the device operate in mission-critical or hazardous environments?
• Are you targeting automotive, medical, rail, or aerospace markets?
• Do clients or regulators require compliance with ISO, IEC, or DO standards?

If the answer is yes, FuSa isn’t optional — it’s foundational.

How Promwad Supports Functional Safety Projects

We help clients:

• Design hardware architectures with safety in mind
• Select certified components and fault-detecting ICs
• Develop compliant documentation (FMEA, safety manuals, traceability)
• Implement and verify diagnostics and redundancy
• Prepare for third-party audits and certifications

Our teams have experience in both ISO 26262 and IEC 61508 projects — across automotive ECUs, industrial PLCs, and safety sensors.

Final Thoughts

Functional safety isn’t just an engineering overhead. It’s a mindset and methodology that creates robust, reliable, and certifiable systems — especially as electronics take over safety-critical roles.

At Promwad, we support customers across regulated industries in building functionally safe electronics — from early analysis to final certification.

If your next project involves safety-critical design, we’ll help you get it right — from the first schematic.