1、2IntroductionWelcome to the 2022 State of Automotive Software Development Report!This year,nearly 600 automotive development professionals around the world provided responses to questions regarding current practices and emerging trends within the automotive software industry.With the continued growt

2、h in the development of electric and semi-autonomous vehicles,as well as the subsequent increase in software components,our findings show that security is now a major concern and is as important as safety.This is reflected in the increasing requirements to comply with security standards.To ensure th

3、at both safety and security issues are found early in the development lifecycle,many of our respondents are adopting or are in the process of adopting a shift-left strategy.We hope this information will help your development team innovate faster and improve quality while maintaining compliance for s

4、afety and security.Thank you to everyone who participated in the survey!Jill Britton Director of Compliance Perforce Software2022 State of Automotive Software Development Report3Table of ContentsWHAT IS KEEPING AUTOMOTIVE SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS UP AT NIGHT?.4 Safety.5 Security.8 Quality.11 Testing.14 T

5、eam Productivity.16AREAS OF AUTOMOTIVE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT.18 Automotive Development Focus.18 Adoption&Implementation of Shift-Left.20 Recalls&Vulnerabilities.22 Automotive Software Security.24HOW MUCH ARE DEVELOPERS TRULY AFFECTED BY ELECTRIC,AUTONOMOUS,SEMI-AUTONOMOUS,AND CONNECTED VEHICLES?.25 E

6、lectric Vehicle Development Continues to Ramp Up.25Leading Concerns About Electric Vehicle Development.27 Autonomous Vehicles Are(Still)Coming.28 Connected Vehicles Have Become the Norm.29Leading Autonomous,Semi-Autonomous,and Connected Vehicles Concerns.31WHY STANDARDS-COMPLIANT SOFTWARE REMAINS VI

7、TAL FOR AUTOMOTIVE SOFTWARE.32 ISO 26262 Is Still Key.32 ISO/SAE 21434 Highlights the Growing Need for Software Security.35 SOTIF(ISO/PAS 21448)Continues to be Important.37 Leading Challenges in Proving Compliance.39 Key Coding Standards for Automotive Software Development.40HOW DEVELOPMENT TEAMS MA

8、NAGE THEIR WORK.42 C&C+Are Still the Most Commonly Used Programming Languages.42 Teams Are Leveraging Faster Methods and Processes.44 Leading Challenges in Managing Hardware,Software,and Code Assets.45 How Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Have Impacted Automotive Design.47 Which Software

9、 Tools Development Teams Are Using.49 Leading Benefit of Development Tools.50WHY STATIC ANALYSIS REMAINS ESSENTIAL FOR AUTOMOTIVE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT.51ABOUT THE SURVEY APPENDIX.524What Is Keeping Automotive Software Developers Up at Night?The Leading Concerns in Automotive Software and Technology

10、DevelopmentWhen looking at automotive software development,we identified five key areas of concern:1.Safety2.Security3.Quality4.Testing5.Team ProductivityBased on the collected results,there was one major shift from last years report:Security.Security was selected by 27%of the respondents,which is a

11、n increase of 5%over last year.Quality also saw an increase of 4%for a total of 25%.Both of these gains took away from safety,which saw a decrease of 9%over last year for a total of 34%.WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST CONCERN IN AUTOMOTIVE SOFTWARE AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT TODAY?Safety remains the top concer

12、n in automotive software development,followed closely by security and quality,which both saw marked increases.7%Team Productivity7%Testing27%Security34%Safety25%Quality5SafetyOVERVIEW GENERAL34%of those surveyed cited safety as their top concern in automotive software development.When compared to la

13、st years report,there are several notable shifts.One of the most significant highlights was that“tool qualification for compliance takes too long”saw a steep decrease of 11%to 0%.A possible explanation for this staggering decline is that those surveyed are using pre-qualified tools so they no longer

14、 need to qualify the tools themselves.However,respondents who stated the“difficulties of fulfilling every ISO 26262 requirement”increased from 38%to 46%.This increase could be a result of the growing number of components originating in a non-automotive environment,which has made the process of cover

15、ing every ISO 26262 requirement more challenging and time-consuming.In parallel,the“expectation of customers for organizations to comply with safety coding standards”increased by 5%for a total of 45%.Although compliance with a safety coding standard is not mandatory for functional safety,it is an es

16、sential aspect of automotive software,which can also make it one of the most challenging.WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOUR SAFETY CONCERNS?Tool qualification for use with a functional safety standard is no longer an issue.Rather,it is the necessity to comply with functional standards and to ensure safety ac

17、ross the software supply chain that are the top safety concerns.9%We are strugglingto ensure safety across the supply chain.45%It is difficult(and time-consuming)to fulfill every ISO 26262 requirement.46%Our customers expect us to comply with a safe coding standard(e.g.,MISRA).6OVERVIEW ORGANIZATION

18、 SIZEWhen looking at the collected responses by organization size,medium-sized organizations voiced higher customer demand to comply with safety coding standards.While enterprises with over 10,000 employees had the highest percentage of“struggling to ensure safety across the supply chain”at 19%versu

19、s the average of 10%across all other respondents.Clearly,safety concerns with large software supply chains are complex.OVERVIEW REGION When looking at the collected responses by region,61%of the APAC region responded that customers expect them to comply with safety coding standards,the highest among

20、 all regions.Coincidentally,APAC has the lowest percentage(4%)of any region concerning the struggle to ensure safety across the supply chain.Small(Less than 100 employees)Medium(101-999 employees)Large(1000+employees)Enterprise(10,000+employees)11%38%51%52%50%31%19%38%10%6%59%35%It is difficult(and

21、time-consuming)to fulfill every ISO 26262 requirement.Our customers expect us to comply with a safe coding standard(e.g.,MISRA).We are struggling to ensure safety across the supply chain.North AmericaEurope,Middle East,AfricaAsia PacificLatin America19%41%40%35%67%17%16%61%4%5%44%51%It is difficult(

22、and time-consuming)to fulfill every ISO 26262 requirement.Our customers expect us to comply with a safe coding standard(e.g.,MISRA).We are struggling to ensure safety across the supply chain.7OVERVIEW AUTOMOTIVE DEVELOPMENT FOCUSWhen looking at the collected responses by automotive development focus

23、,expectations from customers to comply with functional coding standards are greater for some automotive development focuses,including LiDAR,Dealer Management,Manufacturing,and Supply Chain.At the same time,the struggle to ensure safety across the supply chain in no other area of automotive developme

24、nt focus is higher than with Hybrid Electric Control Systems(HEV/EV).Chassis and Safety(Electric PowerSteering EPS,Brakes,and Airbags)ECU/ECMPowertrain(non-EV)AD/Autonomous Drive11%40%49%40%39%55%6%58%2%14%40%46%EV ChargingAccess Control and Comfort SystemsADAS/Driver AssistanceInfotainment Systems1

25、1%52%37%47%44%41%15%43%10%5%57%38%LiDARConnected Car and V2XHybrid Electric Control Systems(HEV/EV)Instrument Clusters/HVAC/Lighting15%50%35%43%42%47%11%40%17%7%48%45%Dealer ManagementDiagnosticManufacturingSupply Chain8%67%25%27%28%61%11%68%5%11%39%50%It is difficult(and time-consuming)to fulfill e

26、very ISO 26262 requirement.Our customers expect us to comply with a safe coding standard(e.g.,MISRA).We are struggling to ensure safety across the supply chain.8SecurityOVERVIEW GENERAL27%of those that we surveyed cited security as their top concern in automotive software development.When compared t

27、o last years report,there are several notable shifts.The top concern,“its difficult to enforce secure coding practices”saw an increase of 6%for a total of 34%.This increase does not mean that secure coding practices have changed or are more difficult,rather,this relates to the greater number of proj

28、ects and developers working in automotive software.For that reason,it is important to have the right software development tools to reduce concerns.In addition,concerns over“unauthorized access to onboard/offboard systems”decreased by 14%for a total of 32%.This decline confirms authentication and aut

29、horization access are easier problems to address for software development teams.WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOUR SECURITY CONCERNS?The increase of complex projects and the growing number of developers in automotive software has highlighted security concerns.Overall security awareness is positive,but the ne

30、xt necessary step is to address those concerns.32%We are concerned withunauthorized access toon-board/off-board systems.34%It is difficult to enforcesecure coding practices.26%Our development team lacksthe skills needed to combatsecurity threats.8%Security testing takes toomuch time it slows downdev

31、elopment.9OVERVIEW REGIONWhen looking at the collected responses by region,both North America and Latin America,the top concern was the“unauthorized access to on-board/off-board systems”,which was significantly different from the overall average of 32%.For EMEA,the top security concern was the“diffi

32、culties of enforcing secure coding practices”,and in APAC,the leading concern was that their“development teams lacked the skills needed to combat security threats”.OVERVIEW RESPONDENT EXPERIENCE LEVELWhen looking at the collected responses by individual experience level,automotive software professio

33、nals with more than 10 years of experience are more worried about the“unauthorized access to on-board/off-board systems”than they are about“enforcing secure coding standards”,whereas less experienced personnel are most concerned about“enforcing secure coding standards”.Regions across the globe have

34、distinct security concerns,and each one can be effectively addressed through the use of a static analysis tool.North AmericaEurope,Middle East,AfricaAsia PacificLatin America17%6%12%22%54%19%50%25%25%27%42%25%44%25%We are concerned with unauthorized accessto on-board/off-board systems.It is difficul

35、t to enforce secure coding practices.Our development team lacks the skills neededto combat security threats.Security testing takes too much time it slowsdown development.7%1-3 years3-5 years5-10 yearsMore than 10 years36%4%8%7%36%24%37%47%22%22%37%19%Less than 1 year7%28%34%31%24%42%26%We are concer

36、ned with unauthorized accessto on-board/off-board systems.It is difficult to enforce secure coding practices.Our development team lacks the skills neededto combat security threats.Security testing takes too much time it slowsdown development.9%10OVERVIEW AUTOMOTIVE DEVELOPMENT FOCUSWhen looking at t

37、he collected responses by automotive development focus,“concerns about the unauthorized access to on-board/off-board systems”is the highest for Instrument Clusters/HVAC/Lighting,as well as Access Control and Comfort Systems.This is not surprising since this is software that interacts directly with t

38、he end-user as opposed to an internal component.The“difficulties enforcing secure coding practices”is a top concern among respondents in Supply Chain and Hybrid Electric Control Systems(HEV/EV).This is also not too surprising as these are typically components from third parties that cannot be direct

39、ly tested.Chassis and Safety(Electric Power SteeringEPS,Brakes,and Airbags)ECU/ECMPowertrain(non-EV)AD/Autonomous Drive50%15%20%15%22%28%35%28%9%46%16%16%32%14%36%18%EV ChargingAccess Control and Comfort SystemsADAS/Driver AssistanceInfotainment Systems26%15%47%12%25%25%35%31%9%38%25%12%18%12%37%33%

40、LiDARConnected Car and V2XHybrid Electric Control Systems(HEV/EV)Instrument Clusters/HVAC/Lighting15%23%39%23%11%38%19%33%10%47%26%16%19%19%29%33%Dealer ManagementDiagnosticManufacturingSupply Chain33%7%33%27%27%27%27%19%10%50%20%20%21%21%29%29%We are concerned with unauthorized accessto on-board/of

41、f-board systems.It is difficult to enforce secure coding practices.Our development team lacks the skills neededto combat security threats.Security testing takes too much time it slowsdown development.11QualityOVERVIEW GENERAL25%of those surveyed cited quality as their top concern in automotive softw

42、are development.When compared to last years report,there are several notable shifts.One of the most notable changes was that“our code is too complex”increased by 9%for a total of 34%.This jump could be attributed to the increasing number of software components being added to vehicles and the consequ

43、ential complexity in the interfaces.Meanwhile,“our testing efforts are not exhaustive,and we do not have time to test more”saw a decrease of 5%for a total of 25%.This is great news as testing should always be given priority.Finally,“it is difficult to enforce coding best practices”also saw a 5%decre

44、ase for a total of 28%.This can be an indication that there are additional requirements to comply with coding standards to enforce best coding practices which can more easily be implemented with tools.WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOUR QUALITY CONCERNS?13%Peer code reviews are inconsistent.25%Our testing eff

45、orts are not exhaustive and we do not have time to test more.34%Our codebase is too complex.28%It is difficult to enforce coding best practices.121-3 years3-5 years5-10 yearsMore than 10 years10%3%29%20%27%60%35%16%19%14%40%5%Less than 1 year14%43%25%18%17%37%17%Our codebase is too complex.It is dif

46、ficult to enforce coding best practices.Peer code reviews are inconsistent.Our testing efforts are not exhaustive andwe do not have time to test more.51%North AmericaEurope,Middle East,AfricaAsia PacificLatin America13%27%28%14%25%35%50%50%25%25%22%14%11%33%28%Our codebase is too complex.It is diffi

47、cult to enforce coding best practices.Peer code reviews are inconsistent.Our testing efforts are not exhaustive andwe do not have time to test more.OVERVIEW RESPONDENT EXPERIENCE LEVELWhen looking at the collected responses by respondent experience level,60%of engineers with 1-to-3 years of experien

48、ce indicated that“their codebase is too complex”as their leading quality concern.In comparison,of engineers with over 10 years of experience,only 16%considered their“code to be too complex”,and 51%indicated that their main quality concern was that“their testing efforts were not exhaustive and that t

49、hey had no more time to test”.OVERVIEW REGIONWhen looking at the collected responses by region,the EMEA region was the only one where the“difficulty to enforce coding best practices”was the top quality concern.In all other regions,the top quality concern was that their“codebase was too complex”.13OV

50、ERVIEW AUTOMOTIVE DEVELOPMENT FOCUSWhen looking at the collected responses by automotive development focus,there were marked differences in some of the areas,such as the ECU/ECM segment citing their leading concern being that their“codebase is too complex”,and Manufacturing and Supply Chain software

51、 have no quality concerns based on the complexity of their codebase.Instead,their top concern is that their“testing efforts are not exhaustive and they do not have time to test more”.Chassis and Safety(Electric Power SteeringEPS,Brakes,and Airbags)ECU/ECMPowertrain(non-EV)AD/Autonomous Drive24%15%18

52、%43%27%32%26%19%23%40%13%20%18%15%15%52%EV ChargingAccess Control and Comfort SystemsADAS/Driver AssistanceInfotainment Systems17%17%31%35%38%42%24%10%24%21%12%29%14%19%43%24%LiDARConnected Car and V2XHybrid Electric Control Systems(HEV/EV)Instrument Clusters/HVAC/Lighting13%20%40%27%24%16%25%17%42%

53、35%12%29%23%41%18%18%Dealer ManagementDiagnosticManufacturingSupply Chain20%20%40%20%7%43%7%43%62%15%23%24%38%24%14%Our codebase is too complex.It is difficult to enforce coding best practices.Peer code reviews are inconsistent.Our testing efforts are not exhaustive andwe do not have time to test mo

54、re.14TestingOVERVIEW GENERAL7%of those surveyed cited testing as their top concern in automotive software development.When compared to last years report,the results remained nearly unchanged.The“struggle to test efficiently as testing and software validation are time-consuming”increased by 4%for a t

55、otal of 49%,while“not testing early enough in development,bugs around found too late”also increased by 4%for a total for 27%.Taken together,these results indicate a positive trend that highlights the importance of testing.Similarly,“the difficulties of coordinating testing efforts across global team

56、s”also experienced a small increase of 4%for a total of 17%.However,there was a marked decrease in the“difficulties to document automated and manual testing efforts for compliance”,which dropped 12%,all the way down to 7%.The steep decline corresponds to the increased awareness and use of static ana

57、lysis tools throughout the SDLC.WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOUR TESTING CONCERNS?There is an overall increase in testing and compliance.Despite the top concern centered on the ability to test efficiently,documentation of testing efforts for compliance has become a lesser concern thanks to the use of stati

58、c analysis tools.49%We are struggling to test efficiently testing and sofware validation are time-consuming.7%It is difficult to document our automated and manual testing efforts for compliance.27%We are not testing early enough in development,so we find bugs too late.17%Coordinating testing efforts

59、 is difficult across global teams.15OVERVIEW ORGANIZATION SIZEWhen looking at the collected responses by organization size,testing concerns were fairly uniform for all organizations.This result illustrates how thanks to key functional standards and compliance requirements testing in the automotive s

60、oftware industry is applicable to all,from small organizations to large enterprises.Small(Less than 100 employees)Medium(101-999 employees)Large(1000+employees)Enterprise(10,000+employees)28%11%55%45%50%25%25%33%22%6%30%10%20%40%We are struggling to test efficiently testing and sofware validation ar

61、e time-consuming.It is difficult to document our automated and manual testing efforts for compliance.We are not testing early enough in development,so we find bugs too late.Coordinating testing efforts is difficult across global teams.16Team ProductivityOVERVIEW GENERAL7%of those surveyed cited team

62、 productivity as their top concern in automotive software development.When compared to last years report,there are several notable shifts.Even though the“lack of integration or alignment between disparate teams in parallel development”is still the top concern,it decreased by 20%to 38%.Unlike last ye

63、ar,the results were more balanced with other concerns.For example,“managing design and IP assets across hardware and software teams,as well as facilitating reuse”increased by 13%for a total of 32%.This marked increase emphasizes how the importance of design in the automotive development industry can

64、 have a significant impact on team productivity concerns.In addition,the“length of QA cycles are too long,which causes delays in testing”saw a 3%decrease,down to 16%.Tooling and improved architectures could have contributed to that decrease.Finally,the“need to extend release cycles due to merge conf

65、licts and broken builds”increased 11%,for a total of 14%.This increase highlights the challenges in managing growing software development teams and the need for suitable processes and tools to implement them.WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOUR TEAM PRODUCTIVITY CONCERNS?Key areas of concern in regards to team

66、 productivity:Team integration and alignment between disparate teams,and managing design and IP assets across hardware and software teams.14%We need to extend release cycles due to merge conflicts and broken builds.16%QA cycles are long,so we are ofen waiting for testing to be complete.38%We need to

67、 manage the lack of integration or alignment between disparate teams in parallel development.32%We need to manage design and IP assets across hardware and sofware teams and facilitate reuse.17OVERVIEW TEAM SIZEWhen looking at the collected responses by team size,concerns were fairly uniform for ever

68、y size.We need to manage design and IP assets across hardware and sofware teams and facilitate reuse.We need to extend release cycles due to merge conflicts and broken builds.We need to manage the lack of integration or alignment between disparate teams in parallel development.QA cycles are long,so

69、we are ofen waiting for testing to be complete.1-56-2021-10050%13%24%29%14%14%43%13%37%19%19%25%18Automotive Development FocusAutomotive software development covers many areas of design and development,from chassis and safety(electric power steering,breaks,airbags)software to ADAS/Driver assistance,

70、and software from the supply chain.The automotive software industry covers all aspects of what makes a vehicle today,from electric components to instruments,and software for the supply chain.Areas of Automotive Software Development The automotive software industry continues to evolve and adapt to gr

71、owing market demands.As we can see from the respondents to this survey,todays vehicles are made up of many different areas of the software.There were respondents from most of these areas,allowing us to establish some noteworthy trends that emerged in our survey results.Dealer ManagementDiagnosticMan

72、ufacturingSupply Chain8%Instrument Clusters/HVAC/LightingHybrid Electric Control Systems(HEV/EV)Connected Car and V2X14%LIDARInfotainment Systems11%8%EV ChargingAccess Control and Comfort SystemsADAS/Driver AssistanceAD/Autonomous DrivePowertrain(non-EV)23%ECU/ECMChassis and Safety(Electric Power St

73、eering EPS,Brakes,and Airbags)18%18%25%25%24%18%18%11%14%13%N/AOther6%11%15%19OVERVIEW REGIONWhen looking at the collected responses by region,there were some differences in the areas of design and development.For example,over 40%of respondents in Latin America work in access control and comfort sys

74、tems,while in Asia and North America only 16%of respondents work in those areas.For Chassis and Safety,North America and Latin America had a higher response rate than the other regions.OVERVIEW TEAM SIZEWhen looking at the collected responses by team size,we can see a direct correlation between the

75、size of the development team with its area of design and development.For example,45%of respondents in large development teams(those over 250)work on ECU/ECM.Both mid-sized and large development teams work in In-Vehicle Infotainment(IVI)systems.Interestingly,development teams working on EV Charging w

76、ere of all sizes.Access Control and Comfort SystemsChassis and Safety(Electric Power Steering EPS,Brakes,and Airbags)14%24%15%25%16%41%19%17%AsiaPacificLatinAmericaEurope,Middle East,AfricaNorthAmerica21-+6-201-519%21%45%29%22%Infotainment SystemsEV ChargingECU/ECM21%25%35%11%15%27%21%2

77、8%25%17%20Yes,we have implemented it.Yes,we are in the process of implementing it.No,we do not but know that it is important.No,we do not have a plan to implement.32%17%8%43%Adoption&Implementation of Shift-Left Shift-left strategy refers to processes and tooling to automate development,testing,and

78、security early in the software development life cycle(SDLC).Although there is still progress that needs to be made in the automotive software industry,32%of respondents have already implemented a shift-left strategy or are currently in the process of implementing it(43%).However,a small percentage o

79、f respondents(8%)have no plan of implementing a shift-left process.The majority of the automotive software industry has adopted or is actively implementing shift-left practices.21OVERVIEW ORGANIZATION SIZEWhen looking at the collected responses by organization size,both small and large enterprise or

80、ganizations have shifted left,whereas medium and large organizations indicated that they were currently in the process of implementing them.OVERVIEW AUTOMOTIVE DEVELOPMENT FOCUSWhen looking at the collected responses by automotive development focus,some areas of automotive development have already a

81、dopted a shift-left strategy,such as ECU/ECM,which are the highest adopters of shift-left.Small(Less than 100 employees)Medium(101-999 employees)Large(1000+employees)Enterprise(10,000+employees)22%9%27%42%26%37%13%41%9%15%50%9%14%8%51%27%Yes,we have implemented it.Yes,we are in the process of implem

82、enting it.No,we do not but know that it is important.No,we do not have a plan to implement.ECU/ECMChassis and Safety(Electric Power Steering EPS,Brakes,and Airbags)14%40%42%4%6%10%36%48%ADAS/Driver Assistance13%41%42%4%Hybrid Electric Control Systems(HEV/EV)15%39%35%11%Instrument Clusters/HVAC/Light

83、ing8%49%35%8%Yes,we have implemented it.Yes,we are in the process of implementing it.No,we do not but know that it is important.No,we do not have a plan to implement.22Recalls&VulnerabilitiesIn the last two decades,the number of automotive recalls has nearly doubled in North America,according to the

84、 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(NHTSA).In general,each recall affects thousands of vehicles.Whats more,the impact of a vehicle recall is significant with the cost averaging about$500 per vehicle,according to Mike Held,a director in the automotive and industrial practice at AlixPartne

85、rs.Recalls can become incredibly expensive for the manufacturer.For example,in 2019,which is the most recent data available,there were 964 automotive recalls for 53.1 million vehicles.The estimated cost for recalls that year was roughly$26.5 million.Aside from the financial impact,a recall can affec

86、t a companys reputation and impact market performance.Of our respondents,38%stated that they had been impacted by a recall or code vulnerability,48%stated that they had not been impacted,and 14%did not know whether their organization had or had not been impacted.It is important to mention that there

87、 are varying degrees of severities for recalls and vulnerabilities,38%is nevertheless higher than it should be,as it should be close to 0%as possible.That number could be influenced by a new security vulnerability or the lack of software security tools,such as static analysis,or the lack of software

88、 security training.38%of organizations developing automotive software and components have been impacted by recalls and vulnerabilities.The average cost of an automotive recall is about$500 per vehicle.Yes,we have been impacted by it.No,we have not.I dont know.38%14%48%23OVERVIEW REGIONWhen looking a

89、t the collected responses by region,the EMEA region had the lowest percentage of impact(32%).OVERVIEW ORGANIZATION SIZEWhen looking at the collected responses by organization size,it was apparent that recalls and vulnerabilities equally affected organizations of all sizes.OVERVIEW TEAM SIZEWhen look

90、ing at the collected responses by team size,development teams of 21 to 100 employees showed the highest percentage of impact by recalls and vulnerabilities(43%).North AmericaEurope,Middle East,AfricaAsia PacificLatin America10%49%41%47%59%29%12%42%11%17%51%32%Yes,we have implemented it.No,we have no

91、t.I dont know.6--250251+16%44%40%1-516%53%31%34%34%26%40%13%53%7%50%43%Yes,we have implemented it.No,we have not.I dont know.9%56%35%34%40%41%19%48%18%13%46%41%Yes,we have implemented it.No,we have not.I dont know.Small(Less than 100 employees)Medium(101-999 employees)Large(1000+employees

92、)Enterprise(10,000+employees)24Automotive Software SecurityAs more software is added to vehicles,enforcing software security is no longer optional it is now a requirement.THE LEADING AUTOMOTIVE SOFTWARE SECURITY CHALLENGES48%of those that we surveyed cited that“meeting regulations that require cyber

93、security approval”was their leading software security challenge,with“enforcing secure coding practices”(33%)being the second most cited challenge.This is not surprising as meeting compliance requirements has been a challenge for automotive software development for years,which is why tools like stati

94、c analysis are essential.Delivering software security updates(15%)was the third most cited software security challenge,with others trailing with 4%.A CULTURE OF SOFTWARE SECURITY IS GROWINGDespite the challenges of meeting software security requirements and enforcing secure coding practices,the majo

95、rity of those we surveyed stated that they are provided tools and/or are given software security training(56%).Of those surveyed,34%were not provided with tools or given software security training,and 10%were unsure.Meeting software security requirements and enforcing secure coding practices are the

96、 leading challenges for automotive software security.56%34%10%I dont know.Yes,we provide toolsand/or training.No,we do not.Enforcing secure coding practices.Meeting regulations requiring cybersecurity approval.Delivering sofware security updates.Other33%15%4%48%25“Governments and cities have introdu

97、ced regulations and incentives to accelerate the shift to sustainable mobility,with regulators worldwide defining more stringent emissions targets.The European Union presented its Fit for 55 program,which seeks to align climate,energy,land use,transport,and taxation policies to reduce net greenhouse

98、 gas emissions by at least 55%by 2030,and the Biden administration introduced a 50 percent electric vehicle target for 2030.Beyond such mandates,most governments are also offering EV subsidies.”How Much Are Developers Truly Affected by Electric,Autonomous,Semi-Autonomous,and Connected Vehicles?In re

99、cent years,the automotive industry has been expanding and evolving to include electric,autonomous,semi-autonomous,and connected vehicles.In fact,it is estimated that by 2030,96%of all new cars will have connectivity built-in,and by 2040,nearly every new car sold will be electric,according to a BBC r

100、eport.Electric Vehicle Development Continues to Ramp UpAccording to a recent McKinsey report:Last year,our survey indicated that electric vehicles were becoming the norm,with 47%stating that they are working on some electric vehicle components and 39%stating that it is driving their design and devel

101、opment efforts.This year,we have seen an even greater increase in the development of electric vehicles.45%of respondents indicated that they are working extensively on electric vehicles,which is a 6%increase from a year ago.The response for electric vehicles,somewhat impacting design and development

102、 efforts,went down 5%to 42%,and the response for“not at all”remained the same.26OVERVIEW REGIONWhen looking at the collected responses by region,a majority of the respondents in all regions indicated that electric vehicles are extensively impacting their product design and development.OVERVIEW ORGAN

103、IZATION SIZEWhen looking at the collected responses by organization size,everyone provided similar responses,which was that electric vehicles are extensively impacting product design and development.Larger impact of electric vehicles in product development and design.45%of respondents are working ex

104、tensively on electric vehicles or related designs.56%45%42%13%Not at all We are not working on electric vehicles today.Extensively Electric vehicles aredriving our design.Somewhat We are working onsome electriccomponents.North AmericaEurope,Middle East,AfricaAsia PacificLatin America9%45%46%51%62%19

105、%19%39%10%17%42%41%Extensively Electric vehicles are driving our design.Somewhat We are working on some electric components.Not at all We are not working on electric vehicles today.21%36%43%48%48%42%10%39%13%9%48%43%Extensively Electric vehicles are driving our design.Somewhat We are working on some

106、 electric components.Not at all We are not working on electric vehicles today.Small(Less than 100 employees)Medium(101-999 employees)Large(1000+employees)Enterprise(10,000+employees)27Leading Concerns About Electric Vehicle DevelopmentFor electric vehicles,where many hardware components have been re

107、placed by software electronic devices,it is essential that the software is compliant with key functional safety and security standards.That may be why complying with regulations to ensure safety was the top concern(50%),a slight increase of 1%over last year.Security and avoiding cyberattacks were th

108、e second leading concerns for 25%of respondents,an increase of 8%.Time-to-market and meeting deadlines were the leading concern for 15%of respondents,a slight decrease of 2%over last year.This indicates that as electric vehicle development becomes more prevalent within the industry,the more resource

109、s that are available for teams to meet their deadlines.Meanwhile,keeping development costs under control was the leading concern for 11%,an increase of 2%.This would make sense as the majority of those surveyed are actively working on electric vehicles.The leading concern of electric vehicle develop

110、ment is ensuring safety and security.16%8%22%19%51%26%50%15%11%12%26%30%36%21%32%25%1 Very Concerning2 Concerning3 Somewhat Concerning4 Not ConcerningSafety Complying with RegulationsSecurity Avoiding CyberattacksTime-to-MarketDelivering Innovative Sofware on TimeDevelopment Costs Keeping Them Under

111、 Control28Autonomous Vehicles Are(Still)ComingThe automotive industry has continued to make steady progress on the development of fully autonomous vehicles,they are not quite ready.However,51%of those surveyed are working on some autonomous components,an increase of 7%over last year.Of those we surv

112、eyed,31%are extensively focused on designing a fully autonomous vehicle,a decrease of 7%.These two figures taken together imply that there is a movement away from fully autonomous vehicles and a greater focus on semi-autonomous vehicles.OVERVIEW REGIONWhen looking at the collected responses by regio

113、n,the majority of the regions remained consistent.However,Latin America stood out as 50%of the respondents indicated that they were working extensively on autonomous vehicles.18%Not at all We are not working on autonomous vehicles today.51%Somewhat We are working onsome autonomouscomponents.31%Exten

114、sively We are focused ondesigning a fullyautonomous vehicle.North AmericaEurope,Middle East,AfricaAsia PacificLatin America12%55%33%24%50%25%25%59%17%23%48%29%Extensively We are focused on designing a fully autonomous vehicle.Somewhat We are working on some autonomous components.Not at all We are no

115、t working on autonomous vehicles today.29Connected Vehicles Have Become the NormBy 2030,nearly every vehicle will feature built-in connectivity.Despite that,connectivity is not a central focus for many of our respondents.Only 28%are extensively working on connected vehicles,a decrease of 8%from last

116、 year.With 55%of respondents working on connectivity components,an increase of 6%over last year.This seems to indicate that as built-in connectivity is becoming more common,it has become more of an expected feature of the automotive development process,rather than it being something novel that requi

117、res additional attention.OVERVIEW REGIONWhen looking at the collected responses by region,it is apparent that a majority of respondents indicated that connected vehicles are somewhat impacting product design.17%Not at all We are not working on connected vehicles today.55%Somewhat We are working onso

118、me connectivitycomponents.28%Extensively Connected vehiclesare driving ourdesign.North AmericaEurope,Middle East,AfricaAsia PacificLatin America17%56%27%28%25%31%44%61%11%17%54%29%Extensively Connected vehicles are driving our design.Somewhat We are working on some connectivity components.Not at all

119、 We are not working on connected vehicles today.Unlike a high impact in electric vehicles,connected vehicles remain with moderate impact on product design and development.30Chassis and Safety(Electric PowerSteering EPS,Brakes,and Airbags)ECU/ECMPowertrain(non-EV)AD/Autonomous Drive39%56%58%48%45%7%3

120、9%3%3%5%7%45%48%EV ChargingAccess Control and Comfort SystemsADAS/Driver AssistanceInfotainment Systems35%62%45%40%51%9%49%8%41%51%LiDARConnected Car and V2XHybrid Electric Control Systems(HEV/EV)Instrument Clusters/HVAC/Lighting41%55%65%59%38%31%12%36%52%Dealer ManagementDiagnosticManufacturingSupp

121、ly Chain10%30%60%58%57%28%15%34%8%12%39%49%Extensively Electric vehicles are driving our design.Somewhat We are working on some electric components.Not at all We are not working on electric vehicles today.4%6%4%3%OVERVIEW AUTOMOTIVE DEVELOPMENT FOCUSWhen looking at the collected responses by automot

122、ive development focus,you can see a clear extensive development based on electric vehicles,in some areas even over 60%of the respondents.3114%13%19%61%24%56%11%13%21%25%45%21%38%28%1 Very Concerning2 Concerning3 Somewhat Concerning4 Not ConcerningSafety Complying with RegulationsSecurity Avoiding Cy

123、berattacksTime-to-MarketDelivering Innovative Sofware on TimeDevelopment Costs Keeping Them Under Control6%5%Leading Autonomous,Semi-Autonomous,and Connected Vehicles ConcernsWith autonomous,semi-autonomous,and connected vehicles,there are both safety and security concerns especially with so many ha

124、rdware components having been replaced by software electronic devices.When looking at autonomous,semi-autonomous,and connected vehicles as a whole,56%of those we surveyed stated that complying with regulations to ensure safety was their leading concern,which is the same as last year.However,software

125、 security vulnerabilities increased by 9%over last year for a total of 28%.The impact of that increase can be seen in time-to-market and meeting deadlines(11%)and keeping development costs under control(5%),both of which saw declines over the previous year.This shows that there is a growing concern

126、around software security in these vehicles as the number of connected software components increases.Concerns over cybersecurity rose by 9%over last year.32ISO 26262 Is Still KeyISO 26262 is a key functional safety standard for the automotive industry.A majority of those we surveyed are required to c

127、omply with ISO 26262(79%).Central to automotive software development,ISO 26262 is enforced throughout all areas of automotive software development.Why Standards-Compliant Software Remains Vital for Automotive Software THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY REMAINS HIGHLY REGULATEDAll vehicle components regardless

128、of whether they are for autonomous,semi-autonomous,electric,connected,or traditional vehicles have some safety and security requirements,but the level of coverage varies depending on the functionality of the component.Therefore,ensuring that software is compliant with key industry coding standards a

129、nd guidelines is an essential part of the automotive software development process for all types of vehicles.21%No79%Yes33WHY DEVELOPERS NEED TO COMPLY WITH ISO 26262For those who need to comply with ISO 26262:48%need to comply due to a customer requirement,an increase of 4%over last year.33%need to

130、comply due to a market requirement,a decrease of 4%over last year.19%have an internal requirement,an increase of 2%over last year.OVERVIEW REGIONWhen looking at the collected responses by region,ISO 26262 compliance is a nearly universal expectation,yet the reasoning for its compliance differs.For e

131、xample,in EMEA,52%of respondents cited that ISO 26262 is a customer requirement,and in Latin America,54%indicated that it was a market requirement.19%Internal Requirement48%Customer Requirement33%Market RequirementNorth AmericaEurope,Middle East,AfricaAsia PacificLatin America18%43%38%34%54%23%23%52

132、%14%20%52%28%Market RequirementCustomer RequirementInternal RequirementOther1%34OVERVIEW AUTOMOTIVE DEVELOPMENT FOCUSWhen looking at the collected responses by automotive development focus,the leading reason for ISO 26262 compliance was that it was a customer requirement rather than a market require

133、ment.Dealer ManagementDiagnosticManufacturingSupply Chain38%15%47%Instrument Clusters/HVAC/LightingHybrid Electric Control Systems(HEV/EV)Connected Car and V2X19%47%33%LIDARInfotainment Systems54%54%34%33%13%EV ChargingAccess Control and Comfort SystemsADAS/Driver AssistanceAD/Autonomous DrivePowert

134、rain(non-EV)14%52%33%ECU/ECMChassis and Safety(Electric Power Steering EPS,Brakes,and Airbags)7%43%47%51%16%33%Market RequirementCustomer RequirementInternal RequirementOther3%2%1%13%49%36%17%47%35%1%15%45%39%1%15%56%27%2%19%46%35%10%46%42%2%1%21%47%31%1%12%46%40%2%12%38%47%3%12%35WHY DEVELOPERS NEE

135、D TO COMPLY WITH ISO/SAE 21434For those who need to comply with ISO/SAE 21434:54%need to comply due to a customer requirement,an increase of 14%over last year.23%need to comply due to a market requirement,a decrease of 15%over last year.23%have an internal requirement,an increase of 1%over last year

136、.23%Internal Requirement54%Customer Requirement23%Market RequirementISO/SAE 21434 Highlights the Growing Need for Software SecurityISO/SAE 21434 is a relatively new automotive standard that focuses on the cybersecurity risk in road vehicle electronic systems.Despite its recentness,a majority of thos

137、e surveyed will be required to comply with ISO/SAE 21434(71%).71%Yes29%No36OVERVIEW AUTOMOTIVE DEVELOPMENT FOCUSWhen looking at the collected responses by automotive development focus,compliance with ISO/SAE 21434 is primarily a customer requirement.This makes sense as it is not yet an industry requ

138、irement,but will become mandatory in the future.Dealer ManagementDiagnosticManufacturingSupply Chain75%19%6%Instrument Clusters/HVAC/LightingHybrid Electric Control Systems(HEV/EV)Connected Car and V2X21%52%25%LIDARInfotainment Systems26%25%64%60%14%EV ChargingAccess Control and Comfort SystemsADAS/

139、Driver AssistanceAD/Autonomous DrivePowertrain(non-EV)23%57%19%ECU/ECMChassis and Safety(Electric Power Steering EPS,Brakes,and Airbags)14%55%30%71%13%16%Market RequirementCustomer RequirementInternal RequirementOther1%1%1%17%55%27%23%59%16%2%29%55%15%1%21%57%19%3%19%59%20%2%14%57%27%2%2%24%51%23%2%

140、19%55%24%2%14%54%30%2%11%37WHY DEVELOPERS NEED TO COMPLY WITH SOTIF (ISO/PAS 21448)For those who need to comply with SOTIF(ISO/PAS 21448):59%need to comply due to a customer requirement,an increase of 13%over last year.25%need to comply due to a market requirement,a decrease of 9%over last year.15%h

141、ave an internal requirement,a decrease of 3%over last year.With the growth of semi-autonomous vehicle development,more development teams are required to comply with SOTIF(ISO/PAS 21448),which would contribute to the increase of 13%over last year.1%Other15%Internal Requirement59%Customer Requirement2

142、5%Market RequirementSOTIF(ISO/PAS 21448)Continues to be ImportantSOTIF(ISO/PAS 21448)was developed to address the additional safety challenges for autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles.A majority of those that we surveyed stated that SOTIF(ISO/PAS 21448)was a part of their software development pro

143、cess(64%).64%Yes36%No38Dealer ManagementDiagnosticManufacturingSupply Chain74%7%19%Instrument Clusters/HVAC/LightingHybrid Electric Control Systems(HEV/EV)Connected Car and V2X14%62%22%LIDARInfotainment Systems24%29%68%64%12%EV ChargingAccess Control and Comfort SystemsADAS/Driver AssistanceAD/Auton

144、omous DrivePowertrain(non-EV)17%59%23%ECU/ECMChassis and Safety(Electric Power Steering EPS,Brakes,and Airbags)15%61%23%71%9%20%Market RequirementCustomer RequirementInternal RequirementOther1%1%11%60%29%12%63%24%1%12%66%21%1%16%62%19%3%10%73%15%2%9%72%16%3%2%19%50%29%2%14%60%23%3%19%49%30%2%3%OVERV

145、IEW AUTOMOTIVE DEVELOPMENT FOCUSWhen looking at the collected responses by automotive development focus,we can see that some areas of automotive software development have a higher demand for SOTIF(ISO/PAS 21448).For example,Access Control and Comfort Systems at 71%indicating that is a customer requi

146、rement,and Infotainment systems at 73%.OVERVIEW REGIONWhen looking at the collected responses by region,the customer requirement for compliance with SOTIF(ISO/PAS 21448)has grown to over 50%across all regions.North AmericaEurope,Middle East,AfricaAsia PacificLatin America15%1%50%34%19%33%50%17%70%11

147、%17%63%20%Market RequirementCustomer RequirementInternal RequirementOther39Leading Challenges in Proving ComplianceProving compliance with key automotive functional safety and security standards can be a challenging and time-consuming process,but we continue to see increased demand from customers fo

148、r meeting these standards.Most of those that we surveyed struggled to fulfill safety requirements and prove that those requirements have been filled(47%).16%had trouble with enforcing coding standards,an increase of 4%,and others experienced difficulties with showing design history(14%),documenting

149、versions of files and assets(12%),and analyzing risks(9%).The increased challenges with enforcing coding standards seem to correlate with the increased need for security and safety compliance across all types of automotive vehicles.Fulfilling safety requirements and providing documentation proving t

150、hat the criteria have been met is the leading challenge with automotive software compliance.Enforcing Coding StandardsFulfilling Safety Requirements(and Proving It)Showing Design HistoryDocumenting Versions of Files and Assets16%13%12%Analyzing Risk9%Other3%47%40OVERVIEW ORGANIZATION SIZEWhen lookin

151、g at the collected responses by organization size,very large organizations with at 10,000 employees struggled the most with analyzing risks(18%)versus other organizations,which had an average of 9%.OVERVIEW RESPONDENT EXPERIENCE LEVELWhen looking at the collected responses by respondent experience l

152、evel,industry professionals with at least 10 years of experience,were the least concerned about showing design history(4%)with the average for the other groups being 16%.However,they were the most concerned about analyzing risks(18%)with the average being 9%.The leading challenge in proving complian

153、ce for organizations of every size is fulfilling safety requirements and verifying that all of the criteria have been met.1-3 years3-5 years5-10 yearsMore than 10 years16%17%49%8%Less than 1 year3%Enforcing coding standardsFulfilling safety requirements(and proving it)Showing design historyAnalyzing

154、 riskOtherDocumenting versions of files and assets17%12%9%38%20%4%2%14%12%50%16%8%6%12%17%48%17%6%17%10%48%7%4%14%Key Coding Standards for Automotive Software Development86%of those surveyed are using at least one coding standard.The use of a coding standard is important for uniformity in your codeb

155、ase,which helps to ensure that it is safe,secure,and compliant.Coding standards are used by 86%of organizations in the automotive software development industry.86%Yes14%No41WHICH CODING STANDARDS DEVELOPERS USE MOST FOR AUTOMOTIVE SOFTWAREMany of those that we surveyed are using multiple coding stan

156、dards.With 50%using MISRA,an increase of 3%over last year.The second most used coding standard is C+Core Guidelines,which saw an increase of 4%over last year for a total of 43%.Some of those surveyed use the following standards:34%use AUTOSAR C+14,a decrease of 5%.28%use Embedded C(Barr Group),a dec

157、rease of 6%.19%use High Integrity C+,a decrease of 8%.16%use CERT,an increase of 1%.11%use Google C+Style Guide,a decrease of 1%.MISRA is used across all automotive software development areas globally.C+Core GuidelinesEmbedded C(Barr Group)43%28%High Integrity C+19%CERT16%Google C+Style Guide11%Othe

158、r5%MISRA50%AUTOSAR C+1434%42How Development Teams Manage Their WorkC and C+Are Still the Most Commonly Used Programming LanguagesBased on our survey results,C+is still the leading programming language for automotive software development.When compared to last years report,the use of C has decreased b

159、y 22%to 37%,and C+increased by 15%to 53%.The use of Java remained the same at 32%,and Python at 31%,which is the preferred language for Artificial Intelligence(AI)and Machine Learning(ML)applications.CC#37%23%Python31%C+53%Java32%43OVERVIEW AUTOMOTIVE DEVELOPMENT FOCUSWhen looking at the collected r

160、esponses by automotive development focus,we found that:C is mostly used for the development of ECU/ECM(63%),as well as chassis and safety(55%).C+is most used for the development of ECU/ECM(67%),ADAS/Driver Assistance(66%),and chassis and safety(66%).C#is most used for the development of LiDAR(39%),a

161、s well as Infotainment Systems(37%).Java is most used for the development of supply chain(61%),manufacturing(46%),and LiDAR(46%).Python is most used for the development of Hybrid Electric Control Systems(HEV/EV)(53%),as well as Diagnostics(48%).25%20%33%67%63%Dealer ManagementDiagnosticManufacturing

162、Supply ChainInstrument Clusters/HVAC/LightingHybrid Electric Control Systems(HEV/EV)Connected Cart and V2XLIDARInfotainment SystemsEV ChargingAccess Control and Comfort SystemsADAS/Driver AssistanceAD/Autonomous DrivePowertrain(non-EV)ECU/ECMChassis and Safety(Electric Power Steering EPS,Brakes,and

163、Airbags)25%38%33%66%55%34%39%36%60%42%27%38%33%52%37%38%40%33%54%28%24%35%35%56%33%37%43%45%64%46%31%39%40%66%48%31%44%43%60%37%39%46%46%60%47%34%45%45%62%49%26%37%53%51%44%24%41%48%66%47%30%45%30%45%13%30%61%46%52%41%24%46%42%50%32%C#JAVAPYTHONC+C44Teams Are Leveraging Faster Methods and ProcessesM

164、any automotive development teams have adopted methods and processes that help them to quickly adapt and develop quality software faster.In comparison to last years results,we can conclude that respondents continue using the different methods at the same rate.Agile development continues to be the mos

165、t used method(45%),and test-driven development(38%)was the second most used option for development.HOW HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE TEAMS WORK TOGETHERWith the growing prevalence of electric,autonomous,semi-autonomous,and connected vehicles,the automotive industry continues to shift from hardware-driven ma

166、chines to software-driven electronics devices.For that reason,it is essential that development teams can effectively manage both hardware and software,as well as code assets.Model-Drive DevelopmentTest-Driven DevelopmentAutomatic Code GenerationAgile Development33%32%45%Waterfall Development26%Paral

167、lel Development13%38%Other5%45OVERVIEW ORGANIZATION SIZEWhen looking at the collected responses by organization size,there were a few similarities,with both medium and large organizations citing“integration with engineering tools(design/test)”being their leading concern.While small and enterprise or

168、ganizations shared that“cross-team(hardware/software)collaboration”was their leading concern.Small(Less than 100 employees)Medium(101-999 employees)Large(1000+employees)Enterprise(10,000+employees)23%14%28%30%25%30%17%24%28%28%27%15%5%5%1%40%17%29%14%Cross-team(hardware/sofware)collaborationTeams wo

169、rking from distributed locationsIntegration with engineering tools(design/test)Management of multiple variants/releases of technology componentsOtherChallenges in managing hardware,software,and code assets can become exasperated as more hardware components are replaced with software.The most signifi

170、cant challenge was effectively integrating engineering design and test tools(29%).That challenge can be further aggravated by teams working from distributed locations(28%)while also collaborating across teams for both hardware and software(24%).In addition,managing multiple variants and releases of

171、all the technology components was cited as a leading concern by 17%.Cross-Team(Hardware/Sofware)CollaborationTeams Working From Distributed LocationsIntegration with Engineering Tools(Design/Test)28%29%Management of Multiple Variants/Releasesof Technology Components17%Other2%24%Leading Challenges in

172、 Managing Hardware,Software,and Code Assets46OVERVIEW AUTOMOTIVE DEVELOPMENT FOCUSFor the leading challenges in managing hardware,software,and code assets,here is the breakdown based on automotive development focus.Dealer ManagementDiagnosticManufacturingSupply ChainInstrument Clusters/HVAC/Lighting

173、Hybrid Electric Control Systems(HEV/EV)Connected Car and V2XLIDARInfotainment SystemsEV ChargingAccess Control and Comfort SystemsADAS/Driver AssistanceAD/Autonomous DrivePowertrain(non-EV)ECU/ECMChassis and Safety(Electric Power Steering EPS,Brakes,and Airbags)11%47%42%42%Cross-team(hardware/sofwar

174、e)collaborationTeams working from distributed locationsIntegration with engineering tools(design/test)Management of multiple variants/releasesof technology componentsOther29%33%19%16%3%1%1%4%3%1%4%29%33%19%16%18%36%32%13%21%37%25%17%16%33%36%12%18%27%31%23%22%23%30%21%3%20%30%23%24%3%19%37%26%16%4%2

175、0%20%31%25%1%18%28%31%22%3%11%29%29%28%1%8%43%30%18%3%22%34%19%22%14%46%12%28%2%15%33%35%15%47How Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Have Impacted Automotive DesignThe use of new technologies has also had an impact on the automotive development space,with artificial intelligence(AI)and mac

176、hine learning(ML)being increasingly used in their automotive software development.Similarly to last years results,there were only minimal variations,with a difference of only 1-2%variance.Most of those we surveyed stated that they were using AI and/or ML somewhat for development(48%),and 33%stated t

177、hat they are extensively using AI and/or ML to drive innovation.55%19%Not at all We are not using AIand/or machine learning today.48%Somewhat We are using AI and/ormachine learning forsome development.33%Extensively We are using AI and/ormachine learning todrive innovation.OVERVIEW REGIONWhen lookin

178、g at the collected responses by region,North American and Latin America regions displayed extensive use of AI/ML.North AmericaEurope,Middle East,AfricaAsia PacificLatin AmericaExtensivelySomewhatNot at all11%47%42%23%47%30%16%60%24%24%38%38%48OVERVIEW AUTOMOTIVE DEVELOPMENT FOCUSWhen looking at the

179、collected responses by automotive development focus,we see extensive development-based AI/ML.Dealer ManagementDiagnosticManufacturingSupply Chain50%48%Instrument Clusters/HVAC/Lighting21%37%42%Hybrid Electric Control Systems(HEV/EV)18%44%38%Connected Car and V2X11%49%40%LIDAR11%47%42%Infotainment Sy

180、stems13%53%34%38%24%54%22%46%16%2%53%15%32%EV ChargingAccess Control and Comfort SystemsADAS/Driver AssistanceAD/Autonomous DrivePowertrain(non-EV)10%45%45%ECU/ECMChassis and Safety(Electric Power Steering EPS,Brakes,and Airbags)43%48%9%47%15%38%Extensively we are using AI and/or machine learning to

181、 drive innovation.Somewhat we are using AI and/or machine learning for some development.Not at all we are not using AI and/or machine learning today.19%47%34%19%48%33%8%52%40%48%14%38%49THE AUTOMOTIVE OSS THAT DEVELOPMENT TEAMS ARE USINGAs more software is added to vehicles,it is important to look a

182、t the operating system(OS)that development teams are using.According to our results,the leading operating system was Automotive Grade Linux(30%),followed by VxWorks(17%),Android Automotive OS(14%),and QNX(9%).In looking at which operating system they would most likely use in the future,the majority

183、of respondents cited Android Automotive OS(21%).VxWorksQNX9%Android Automotive OS14%17%Automotive Grade Linux30%KEY DEVELOPMENT TOOLS USED TO IMPROVE SOFTWARE QUALITYThe amount of software being added to vehicles is increasing at an astounding rate,as a result,the speed and complexity of innovation

184、make cybersecurity essential for automotive software.Which Software Tools Development Teams Are UsingUsing the right software development tools is essential for ensuring that your software is safe,secure,and reliable.Some of the top tools for those we surveyed included:Static Application Security Te

185、sting(SAST)(31%)Project Management(38%)Application Lifecycle Management(Requirement/Test/Issue Management)(39%)Version Control(40%)Static Analysis(46%)50Leading Benefit of Development ToolsA majority(44%)of those we surveyed said that using software development tools has helped accelerate their time

186、-to-market.Some remarked the biggest benefit was simplifying their compliance process(22%).Improved software quality(17%),eliminated risk(safety and/or security)(13%),and reduced costs in development(4%)were also listed as the leading benefit.1 Most Beneficial2 Somewhat Beneficial3 Beneficial4 Somew

187、hat Less Beneficial5 Least BeneficialSimplified the Compliance ProcessEliminated Risk(Safety/Security)Improved Sofware QualityReduced Costs in Development12%14%18%44%Accelerated Time-to-Market12%26%11%23%22%18%33%9%29%13%16%20%10%20%17%33%9%56%10%4%21%51Why Static Analysis Remains Essential for Auto

188、motive Software DevelopmentBased on survey responses,the leading concerns across multiple areas of automotive development are safety and security.One of the most effective methods to mitigate the potential functional safety and security issues is to use a static analysis tool.An industry standardize

189、d static analysis tool such as Perforces Helix QAC and Klocwork enables teams to effectively identify software security vulnerabilities and weaknesses as well as enforce recommended coding standards and guidelines.Both Perforce static analysis tools verify compliance with the coding standards and gu

190、idelines,as well as provide evidence of that compliance.This will provide overall consistency,correctness,and completeness with respect to functional safety and cybersecurity requirements.By using a static analysis tool,you can accelerate compliance by:Enforcing coding standards and detecting rule v

191、iolations.Detecting compliance issues earlier in development.Accelerating code reviews and manual testing efforts.Reporting on compliance over time and across product versions.In addition,Perforce static analysis tools provide full compliance to both MISRA and CERT guidelines.They are also certified

192、 for use for safety-critical systems by TV-SD,including ISO 26262 up to ASIL level D.See for yourself how Perforce static analysis tools can help ensure the functional safety and security of your automotive software.Request your free trial the Survey Appendix The 2022 State of Automotive Software De

193、velopment Survey Report is based on an anonymous survey conducted between March 1 and April 23,2022.It targeted automotive professionals from across the globe and received nearly 600 responses.To help segment and analyze the survey results,we asked respondents basic demographic questions.ExperienceT

194、hose that participated in the survey presented a range of professional experience from less than a year to more than 10.Even though we received a balanced sample,respondents with more than 10 years of experience make up the largest share at 24%.16%23%17%20%24%1-3 years3-5 years5-10 yearsMore than 10

195、 yearsLess than 1 yearRegionThose that participated in the survey are from the top four geographical regions in the world,with Europe,the Middle East,and Africa(EMEA)representing the majority of the responses.51%Europe,Middle East,AfricaNorthAmerica32%14%Asia Pacific3%Latin America53Company SizeThos

196、e that participated in the survey work for companies of all sizes,with a good distribution between large,medium,and small organizations being represented in the survey.Organization TypeThose that participated in the survey,work primarily for Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers,as well as OEMs and Tier 3 sup

197、pliers.28%23%16%33%Small(Less than 100 employees)Medium(101-999 employees)Large(1000+employees)Enterprise(10,000+employees)19%28%9%30%OEMTier 1 SupplierTier 2 SupplierTier 3 Supplier14%Other54Role and Area in the OrganizationTo help the readers of this report better understand who participated in th

198、e survey,we asked the respondents about their area of automotive development,as well as their current roles.It was not surprising to see that“software development”was the top selection,but there are a large variety of areas and roles,including testing and training under the“other”category.Functional

199、 Safety/Security Officer12%Executive7%Analyst5%Administrator3%Student1%Director/Manager23%Compliance Officer7%Other5%Engineer/Developer30%Consultant7%ArchitectureDevOps13%Quality AssuranceRegulatory/Compliance/Security4%Other7%Strategy7%8%5%Sofware Development23%Project Management15%Engineering18%Ab

200、out PerforcePerforce powers innovation at unrivaled scale.Perforce solutions future-proof competitive advantage by driving quality,security,compliance,collaboration,and speed across the technology lifecycle.We bring deep domain and vertical expertise to every customer,so nothing stands in the way of

201、 success.Perforce is trusted by the worlds leading brands to deliver solutions to even the toughest challenges.Accelerate technology delivery,with no shortcuts.Get the Power of Perforce.Have comments or suggestions for next years report?Share them with us by emailing with the subject line“Automotive Software Development 2023”