Myth #2: ASPICE at the Click of a Button? Why No Tool Can Replace Your Processes

Myth #2: ASPICE at the Click of a Button? Why No Tool Can Replace Your Processes

In recent discussions about ASPICE, a common narrative has emerged: DevOps and AI-powered automation will solve all process inefficiencies, making traditional ASPICE implementations obsolete. But is this really the case?

Let’s take a step back and examine what ASPICE is truly about—and why no tool can replace a solid process framework.


The Promise of Fully Automated Compliance

Some voices claim that ASPICE, as traditionally implemented, is too focused on control, documentation, and manual approvals. They contrast this with the modern world of DevOps, where automation ensures compliance seamlessly—removing the need for checklists, Excel sheets, and manual approvals.

The argument goes like this:

  • DevOps becomes the backbone, integrating requirements, coding, testing, and validation.
  • Automated compliance checks eliminate the need for detailed documentation.
  • AI copilots guide developers, ensuring compliance in real-time.

Sounds great in theory. But reality is more nuanced.


DevOps and CI/CD: A Silver Bullet?

DevOps, CI/CD, and automation are undoubtedly powerful tools. They improve efficiency, reduce errors, and provide real-time feedback loops. But here’s the catch: DevOps alone does not guarantee compliance, process maturity, or risk management.

Regulated industries—including automotive—require: ? Clear traceability from requirements to implementation and testing. ? Structured risk assessments and impact analyses. ? Documented decision-making for safety-critical systems. ? Accountability and auditable records for regulatory approval.

DevOps does not replace these fundamental needs. It can support them, but it does not eliminate them.

Also, while checklists should not necessarily be maintained in Excel, they do need to be systematically documented in appropriate tools. Tools can help confirm process adherence, but they should assist rather than replace structured decision-making.


The Reality of Process Maturity

ASPICE is not about bureaucracy—it’s about ensuring that engineering processes lead to consistently high-quality products. Companies that treat ASPICE as a box-ticking exercise often struggle with inefficiency. However, those that implement ASPICE correctly achieve:

  • Scalability: Mature processes allow organizations to grow without chaos.
  • Consistency: Ensuring that quality doesn’t depend on individual heroics.
  • Compliance Without Last-Minute Firefighting: A structured approach avoids costly surprises before audits.

Tools can accelerate these goals—but they cannot define them. A company with broken processes will not magically become ASPICE-compliant just by adopting DevOps.


Tesla, Chinese OEMs, and the Wrong Comparison

Many argue that Tesla and Chinese OEMs have achieved rapid development cycles by abandoning traditional ASPICE processes in favor of DevOps-first engineering. But this ignores a key fact: They control their entire ecosystem.

  • They do not operate within the same supplier-OEM dynamics as traditional automotive companies.
  • For Tier 1s and legacy OEMs, ASPICE remains critical to managing complex, multi-company development environments where compliance, safety, and process discipline cannot be ignored.
  • Additionally, Tesla and many Chinese OEMs have significantly reduced their product variants compared to traditional OEMs. This reduction in complexity lowers the overhead of maintaining numerous configurations and variations, making process management simpler. However, in the broader automotive industry, where product complexity remains high, structured processes like ASPICE are still essential.
  • Tesla, despite its reputation for speed and agility, requires ASPICE Level 2 compliance from its suppliers and has internally well-documented processes that align closely with ASPICE principles—even if they use different terminology. This demonstrates that even the most agile companies recognize the need for structured, repeatable processes.
  • Traditional OEMs could also choose to reduce the number of product variants strategically. However, such a shift would take years to implement due to existing supply chain dependencies and customer expectations.


Conclusion: Tools Are Allies, Not Replacements

Automation, AI, and DevOps should be leveraged to enhance ASPICE implementations. However, they do not replace the need for:

  • A solid process framework.
  • Human decision-making in safety-critical environments.
  • Organizational alignment beyond just engineering teams.

The real question is not whether DevOps and AI make ASPICE obsolete, but rather: How do we integrate these powerful tools within a structured process framework to achieve both efficiency and compliance?

Let’s stop treating ASPICE as a problem and start using it as a foundation for better engineering.

What do you think? How do you balance automation and structured processes in your organization? Let’s discuss!

Regina Preysing

Wissen Finden und Nutzen statt Suchen und Kopieren - den Schatz in Ihren Dokumenten heben - für MDR Compliance

1 个月

Using tools that automate tasks (which mainly also is the case for generative AI) just moves the focus of human work from copy-paste or repeatedly doing the almost same thing with a slightly different content towards intelligence and control ("steuern") tasks: definition of structure, categories, goals and criteria to feed and configure the tools. And, to decide whether the output from tools is what is needed to serve our goals. Tools can help get the content to allow the creation of any product, but it is our task to decide what we want to have an why. And to prove that we are in control about what is our goal and how it is achieved, and take the responsibility for the functionality and safety of the product when it is used by people.

Andreas Dirring

Cognitive AI 4 Edge Case Simulation ???? Synthetic Data Creation at cogniBIT.ai - Validation of ADAS and ADS ++++ Localization and Transformation Projects from Asia to the world.

1 个月

Great insights into the limitations of purely tool-driven ASPICE implementations. The human factor remains crucial in interpreting and adapting processes effectively. At the same time, a Closed-Loop-Development approach supported by cognitive AI can enhance transparency by validating rule-based processes in real-world scenarios. By integrating standardized methods with AI-driven simulations, complex interactions can be tested and documented efficiently—not to replace engineers but to support them. This enables a continuous feedback loop between development and real-world application, particularly for safety-critical systems like ADAS and autonomous driving. Cognitive AI helps verify behavioral models and decision-making rules while maintaining human oversight. ASPICE remains a strong methodological foundation, which can be enhanced, not replaced, by intelligent technology.

Michael Küsters

Thought Provoker / Founder @VXS

1 个月

Necessary versus sufficient. You will never have sufficient outcomes without the necessary preconditions. But not all things to be sufficient are necessary. ASPICE assessment checks whether what you do is sufficient, not whether it's necessary. Doing what is necessary is still on every company by themselves. If I ever need to go through an assessment, I will be able to list my practices and measures, and then it's simply up to the assessor to tell me whether and if anything is insufficient. It may be, and from there, comes to the question of whether in my context, it's necessary. Judgment calls are important. Too many companies focus on getting the passing score, too few focus on doing what is necessary in order to have sustainable high quality.

Enrico Schmidt

Product Owner Process & Quality for PMT & Operations @VW CARIAD

1 个月

two thoughts to this: tech companies like Tesla, google and Microsoft as an example as well structure their processes as code. So docs as code -> compliance as code -> infrastructure as code -> software as code. Example: you describe anyways in your .yaml how your integration pipeline is configured and executed, then you can als use this for automated compliance checks and use it as part of your docs as code. Of course you can’t represent all the activities which needs to be done as code: yes - but the most from SWE.1-SWE.6. the toolstack that you use is indeed your process framework if you think processes as code and not only as documented regulation and compliance.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Ronald Melster的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了