OEM & Lieferant Ausgabe 1/2022

97 in its own right. The software version will get a so-called RxSWIN, a unique software identification number which refers to the regulated vehicle function (e.g., regulation R13 refers to brakes, a brake-controlling software’s RxSWIN will thus also have the prefix “R13”). Requirements to the Vehicle Manufacturer The vehicle manufacturer nowmust homologate separately every software for regulated vehicle functions. Moreover, he has to verify and assert on every software change whether the change is “harmless”, or whether it incorporates a significant change of functionality in respect to the applicable regulation, and thus requires a new homologation. Furthermore, the vehicle manufacturer must keep accounts for every individual vehicle which software versions are contained – starting from the production process and continuously during the life cycle of the vehicle, thus reflecting every software update or change in a workshop or via an “over-the-air” update. The manufacturer must guarantee that it is always possible for official bodies to determine and verify the software status of a vehicle, be it during a police control or a technical inspection. Additionally, an IVD (Integrity Verification Data) must be provided for every software and every relevant parameter set, to make it possible to determine the manipulation of software or data in any way which that it deviates from the manufacturer’s specification. It’s easy to imagine that these requirements bring about an immense effort in the formation of development, production, and workshop processes. Moreover, it becomes necessary to adapt and extend software applications supporting these processes (e.g., for managing software development, for performing end-of-line tests, or to execute a workshop diagnostic, to name only a few). Finally, every vehicle manufacturer must be able to prove, during an official audit, by which means and to which extent his processes and process enabling applications satisfy the new requirements for software update management. Implications for the Independent After-Market These regulations may appear to vehicle owners and vehicle fleet owners alike to be a long-overdue safeguard against software manipulation in vehicles. But these regulations also cause striking consequences for vehicle maintenance in the independent after-market. It was only a couple of years ago that manufacturers were requested to provide “Repair and Maintenance Information” (RMI) to any independent operator in a way that does not put him into a disadvantage compared to the manufacturer’s own workshops. These regulations have become effective in the context of the Euro 5 standards ServiceXpert GmbH https://servicexpert.de/en Share Dr. Roman Cunis Senior Consultant / Senior Systems Engineer ServiceXpert Hamburg Image: © Adobe Stock/vegefox.com for passenger cars and the Euro VI for commercial vehicles in the years from 2009 to 2015. They have been intended to foster free competition in Europe, and they threatened various penalties up to the invalidation of vehicle type homologations for manufacturers not complying. From a technical perspective, the provision of RMI includes the disclosure of meaning and structure of vehicle data accessible via the open diagnostic interface (OBD-II plug). This data can thus be read, understood, and meaningfully modified and written by every workshop – at least to some extent. This capability for modification comprises changes to parameters which control the vehicle’s behaviour, but also allows the upload of software updates. Based on UNECE Regulations No. 155 and No. 156 vehicle manufacturers are now forced (from another perspective: “are again allowed”) to restrict free access. Encrypted communication over open diagnostic interfaces forces independent operators to acquire access certificates. The new requirements for software update management – in respect to keeping accounts of the software status of vehicles – fundamentally exclude the possibility to modify a vehicle by anyone else but the manufacturer himself. This will restrict access not only for independent workshops but also for providers of multibrand diagnostic tools and for the suppliers of vehicle ECUs who will lose the access to their own components. Two new diagnostic technologies might promise relief: With the passthrough technique, diagnostic software and data can be downloaded as a “closed package” from the manufacturer’s service portal. Any independent operator may thus apply this package to a vehicle by using the manufacturer’s original software. The so-called extended-vehicle interface (ISO 20077/78) – which is currently under development – will provide communication access to a vehicle via the manufacturer’s server. (Only the manufacturer retains the direct access to his vehicles.) The diagnostic capabilities therein may – depending on their scope and implementation – help or hinder free access. Currently, stakeholders of independent operators are intensively negotiating with vehicle manufacturers by which means free competition among vehicle service providers can be upheld under the given circumstances. It might well take some more time until the brave new world will become reality as imagined by vehicle users, vehicle manufacturers, and any other participant of the vehicle market. Everybody is busy to intensively work on their respective contributions and from their respective perspectives. ServiceXpert supports their customers among vehicle manufacturers and vehicle suppliers in the adaptation and development of processes and tools with the goal of satisfying the new UNECE regulations in the best way possible.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjUzMzQ=