Automotive SPICE: The ingredient for better development processes

Automotive SPICE – at first glance, this sounds like a particularly spicy seasoning mix for cars, doesn't it? Unfortunately, we have to disappoint you: this is not about chili-infused motor oils, but rather “Automotive Software Process Improvement and Capability dEtermination” (yes, the ‘E’ was creatively incorporated). It's quite a tongue twister, which is why everyone agreed on “Automotive SPICE” or simply “ASPICE.”

Automotive SPICE is a process model developed specifically for the automotive industry to improve the quality and efficiency of software and system development. It is based on ISO 15504, a general standard for evaluating software development processes. The automotive industry then adapted and optimized the model to meet the specific requirements of vehicles.

Automotive SPICE was developed by the Automotive Special Interest Group (SIG), a subgroup of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). This group consists of representatives from major automotive manufacturers and suppliers, including Audi, BMW, Daimler, Fiat, Ford, Jaguar, Land Rover, Porsche, and Volkswagen.

The current version 4.0 of Automotive SPICE® was released at the end of 2023 and introduces a streamlined structure along with an extended plug-in concept. Ten rarely used process areas were removed, while new processes for Hardware Engineering (HWE) and Machine Learning Engineering (MLE) were added. A new scoping model allows greater flexibility by letting companies choose between Base, Plug-in, and Flex areas. In addition, strategy requirements were more clearly defined, traceability and consistency were merged, and terminology was revised to improve clarity and usability.

Nowadays, modern vehicles are no longer just made of sheet metal, engines, and four wheels – they are rolling supercomputers with millions of lines of code. From seat heating to autonomous driving – software is everywhere. But wherever there is software, there are also bugs. If a video game crashes, it’s annoying – but not life-threatening. With a car, it’s a different story.

ASPICE ensures clear processes in software development.

ASPICE improves collaboration between manufacturers and suppliers.

ASPICE ensures that every function meets high safety standards.

ASPICE reduces costs and time losses caused by faulty or inefficient development.

In short: ASPICE ensures that the software in vehicles remains reliable, safe, and maintainable. That’s why many manufacturers require their suppliers to have an ASPICE certification – without it, they often won’t award a contract.

ASPICE is based on ISO 15504, also known as SPICE (Software Process Improvement and Capability dEtermination), which was originally developed as an industry-independent framework. To enable a more precise evaluation of software development processes in the automotive sector, ASPICE was developed on top of it.

In parallel, ISO 15504 evolved into the ISO/IEC 330xx series of standards, which now form the current foundation for process assessment systems. ASPICE continues to use the familiar maturity model, inspired by these standards.

In short, ASPICE does not stand alone, but is part of a comprehensive framework that ensures software in vehicles is as safe and reliable as possible.

ASPICE has become as essential as the TÜV in the automotive world. Without the right processes, there is no certification—and without certification, there are no orders.

OEMs (original equipment manufacturers, i.e., the car manufacturers themselves) in particular require their suppliers to comply with ASPICE. After all, if a control unit fails in a new vehicle, the manufacturer wants to be sure that it wasn't due to chaotic development.

In fact, almost all major car manufacturers require ASPICE as a minimum standard for their suppliers. The higher the certification level, the better the chances of winning good orders.

Here are the main reasons why ASPICE is indispensable for manufacturers and suppliers:

Binding quality standards: Clear rules for the development and testing of software.

Fewer errors, greater safety: Structured processes minimize risks.

Cost savings: Error prevention saves money—and nerves.

Competitive advantage: Companies with a high ASPICE level have better market opportunities.

The smarter a car is, the more software it contains—and the more can go wrong. Modern vehicles are no longer just a means of transportation, but complex, networked systems with functions such as:

ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems): Lane departure warning systems, emergency brake assist, adaptive cruise control

Autonomous driving: Gradual progression from partial automation (level 2) to fully autonomous vehicles (level 5)

Cybersecurity functions: Protection against hacker attacks on vehicles

ASPICE ensures that such critical systems function reliably. Faulty software is not an option here – after all, no one wants their autonomous car to suddenly decide to turn left instead of right.

ASPICE is changing the way software is developed in the automotive industry. Whereas in the past, the principle of “build first, fix later” often prevailed, ASPICE ensures a structured, systematic approach.

• Before: Developers write code – testing comes later. Problems arise late in the process.
• With ASPICE: Development and quality assurance run in parallel – errors are detected and corrected early on.

The result: Higher quality, lower costs, and satisfied customers.

This is where it all begins! In this group, requirements are gathered, translated into a system design, and finally developed into software.

Project Management and Quality Assurance

These processes ensure that chaos doesn’t take over. It's all about planning, control, and quality assurance – after all, the control unit shouldn't be finished on the day the car is delivered.

Support Processes (Configuration Management, Change Management, etc.)

Without clear management of changes and versions, every developer would randomly fiddle with the code – a nightmare!

The V-model is one of the most widely used development models in the automotive industry – and for good reason. It offers a clear, structured approach to managing complex software and system development projects. ASPICE builds on this model by defining specific processes, methods, and quality requirements that must be taken into account in each phase of the V-model.

The V-model is structured so that each development phase on the left has a corresponding test or verification phase on the right.

As the project develops, the requirements for precision and testability increase.

Each specification phase has a corresponding test phase, which allows problems to be identified early on. ASPICE takes the V-model and defines specific processes that must be followed to ensure quality and traceability.

Automotive SPICE therefore requires that every step of the V-model is traceable and tested.

Why is ASPICE integration into the V-model so important?

Errors cost more money in the long run! → If a problem is only discovered during acceptance testing, it is extremely expensive to correct.

Quality is measurable! → ASPICE requires that processes are regularly reviewed and improved.

Manufacturers demand ASPICE level! → Without ASPICE-compliant processes, suppliers have a poor chance of winning tenders.

ASPICE makes the V-model traceable, measurable, and efficient. It forces companies to establish clean processes right from the start, which saves costs and increases product quality in the long term.

Imagine you are a supplier for a large automotive manufacturer. Your company is developing a new automatic emergency braking system (AEB). The customer not only requires a functioning system, but also proof that all development processes have been carried out in accordance with ASPICE.

Sounds like a lot of bureaucracy at first? Maybe – but let's play through the whole thing in a realistic project situation.

System requirements – the starting point in the V-model (SYS.1)

The car manufacturer gives you a specification: “The vehicle must detect obstacles early and brake automatically in case of danger.”

Automotive SPICE requires that this requirement be specified in more detail:

From what distance must the system detect obstacles?

Which sensors are used? (Radar? Camera? Lidar?)

How quickly must the vehicle react?

What environmental conditions are critical? (Rain, fog, darkness?)

ASPICE approach: Each of these questions is documented and converted into a comprehensible, testable specification.

Architecture design – How does the system fit into the vehicle? (SYS.2, SWE.2, SWE.3)

Now it's time to get technical. Your engineers design a system architecture in which the following components are defined:

System components:

Camera & radar sensors for object detection

Control unit for calculating collisions

Actuator that controls the braking system

ASPICE approach: Each of these components receives its own documentation and interface description.

Development & coding – the heart of the system (SWE.4)

Your software team begins implementation. They follow ASPICE rules for clean, traceable code development.

Example: Code guidelines according to ASPICE

Uniform naming of variables (brake_distance_threshold)

Documentation directly in the code

Versioning of all changes

ASPICE approach: Each line of code must be tested later and traceable to the requirements.

Testing – The right side of the V model (SWE.5, SWE.6, SYS.3, SYS.4)

The system is programmed – now comes the ASPICE endurance test.

Test types according to ASPICE:

Module tests: Individual code modules are tested (e.g., does the sensor recognize obstacles correctly?)

Software integration tests: Does the interaction between sensors, software, and brake system work?

System tests: A complete car is put through its paces in a test environment.

Test case: Pedestrian on the road

1. Sensor detects pedestrian at a distance of 15 m
2. Control unit calculates probability of collision
3. Brake system is activated
4. Vehicle comes to a stop in time

ASPICE approach: Every test is documented, reproducible, and traceable.

Acceptance tests & ASPICE certification (SYS.4)

The customer reviews the documentation. They want to see not only that the system works, but also that all ASPICE processes have been properly followed.

Are all requirements traceable down to the code?

Are all test cases documented and passed?

Are the developed processes repeatable and scalable?

Conclusion: Automotive SPICE ensures safety and quality

Good results (Level 3 and higher): Companies are considered reliable partners for OEMs and have better chances of winning new orders.

Low ratings (Level 1–2): Process improvements are necessary to remain competitive in the long term.

Level 0: Critical deficiencies in the development process that can lead to project delays and possible contract terminations.

A high ASPICE maturity level is therefore not only a mark of quality, but also an economic advantage in the competition for new customers and projects. A company with Level 3 or higher can expect better contracts and long-term partnerships.

Automotive SPICE (ASPICE) is one of the central process assessment models in the automotive industry and is closely linked to other norms and standards to ensure the development of safe, efficient, and high-quality vehicle systems. In particular, functional safety according to ISO 26262, cybersecurity requirements according to ISO/SAE 21434, and the general relevance for functional safety assessments play an important role.

Connection to ISO 26262 (functional safety)

ISO 26262 is the central standard for functional safety in the automotive industry. It ensures that electrical and electronic systems in vehicles are systematically analyzed, developed, and tested for risks. The aim is to minimize the probability of safety-critical errors.

Core requirements of ISO 26262

Hazard analysis and risk assessment (HARA): Identification of potential hazards and classification according to Automotive Safety Integrity Levels (ASIL).

Safety requirements: Definition of measures to minimize risk.

Verification and validation: Ensuring functional safety throughout the entire development process.

Connection to Automotive SPICE

ASPICE assesses the processes in software and system development, while ISO 26262 considers their safety-critical aspects.

Therefore, compliance with ISO 26262 requires consistent implementation of the development processes defined in ASPICE.

Connection to ASPICE for cybersecurity (ISO/SAE 21434)

With the increasing connectivity of vehicles, the risk of cyberattacks is growing. The ISO/SAE 21434 standard defines safety requirements for the entire vehicle development and the life cycle of the systems.

Key points of ISO/SAE 21434

Threat analysis and risk assessment (TARA): Identification and classification of potential cybersecurity risks.

Security requirements for software and hardware: Definition of technical measures for attack detection and defense.

Ensuring security-by-design principles: Integration of security measures early on in the development phases.

Integration into ASPICE

ASPICE enables the systematic implementation of cybersecurity requirements in the development process. This includes, among other things:

Definition and documentation of cybersecurity requirements as part of the system design.

Implementation and verification of security mechanisms.

Change management to take new threat scenarios into account.

An ASPICE-compliant development model ensures that cybersecurity guidelines are integrated from the outset and do not have to be added later.

Relevance for automotive functional safety assessments

Compliance with ASPICE, ISO 26262, and ISO/SAE 21434 is regularly checked by functional safety assessments. These assess whether companies have implemented their development processes in accordance with the required standards.

Evaluation criteria

Existence and implementation of safety measures in the development process.

Documentation and verification of safety tests and verification measures.

Compliance with regulatory requirements, especially for safety-critical components.

A successfully completed assessment strengthens a company's market position and is often a prerequisite for supply contracts with OEMs.

ASPICE assessments ensure that processes are implemented efficiently and with a focus on quality. Companies that achieve a high level of maturity in this area benefit from an improved market position and long-term competitiveness. An ASPICE assessment serves to objectively evaluate development processes and follows a clearly defined structure.

Phases of an ASPICE assessment

A complete ASPICE assessment can take anywhere from a few days to several weeks, depending on the scope of the processes to be evaluated.

Important roles and responsibilities

An assessment requires the cooperation of various stakeholders within the company.

A successful assessment requires that all participants are thoroughly prepared and that the process documentation is complete.

Automotive SPICE (ASPICE) promises more efficient development processes, improved product quality, and greater transparency. But the road to getting there is often rockier than a bumpy country road. Many companies find that introducing ASPICE is not simply a matter of distributing a process manual. Instead, there are numerous stumbling blocks that can jeopardize success.

1. Unclear goals and lack of commitment

ASPICE is not an end in itself. However, all too often, its introduction is seen as a chore to meet the demands of an OEM. Without a clear strategy and management commitment, ASPICE remains a paper tiger.

Solution: Define concrete goals, communicate the benefits, and ensure the necessary buy-in from decision-makers.

2. Inadequate process documentation

Many companies begin implementation with insufficiently documented processes. An ASPICE assessment then quickly turns into detective work.

Solution: Document existing processes from the outset and align them with ASPICE requirements.

3. Lack of training and resistance within the team

“We've always done it this way!” – When you hear this sentence, you know that acceptance for ASPICE is not high within the team.

Solution: Train your teams early on and show them in a practical way how ASPICE improves everyday work rather than making it more difficult.

4. Too much at once

A company wants to achieve ASPICE Level 3 right away and tries to convert all processes within a few months. The result? Chaos.

Solution: Opt for a step-by-step implementation. Start with the most important processes and iterate.

Integration into existing development processes

One of the most common questions is: “How can we integrate ASPICE into our existing way of working without turning everything upside down?” Here are some proven approaches that can help:

1. ASPICE as an evolutionary adaptation

ASPICE does not require a revolution, but rather step-by-step improvement. Start with a pilot project and use this experience to gradually optimize other processes.

2. Adapt standard processes in a modular way

Use existing development processes as a starting point. Identify gaps and adapt processes in a targeted manner instead of redefining everything.

3. Make targeted use of tool support

Specialized software helps to implement ASPICE standards efficiently. More on this later.

Best practices for successful implementation

1. Clear distribution of roles

Define responsibilities early on. Who is responsible for process optimization? Who ensures compliance?

2. Continuous improvement instead of a one-time project

ASPICE is not a project with an end date, but a continuous improvement process.

3. Use tools intelligently

Without the right tools, ASPICE becomes a paper avalanche. That's why software support is needed.

Which tools and methods support compliance with Automotive SPICE?

The implementation of Automotive SPICE (ASPICE) is hardly practicable without digital tools. Companies must document development processes seamlessly, track requirements, and automate quality assurance—a Herculean task without the right tools. In addition to specialized ALM and PLM systems, Projektron BCS offers project management software as a comprehensive solution for efficiently controlling ASPICE-compliant processes.

Projektron BCS: Central control for ASPICE-compliant projects

While many companies rely on separate application lifecycle management (ALM) or product lifecycle management (PLM) solutions, Projektron BCS integrates central functions for ASPICE directly into project management:

Why BCS for ASPICE? An integrated solution instead of tool proliferation

Many companies juggle different specialised tools:

ALM systems (IBM Engineering Workflow, Polarion, Codebeamer ALM) manage requirements.

PLM systems (e.g. Siemens Teamcenter) control product-related data.

Jira & Polarion help with review workflows.

SonarQube and test automation tools ensure code quality.

But the challenge lies in integrating these systems, because ASPICE requires end-to-end process control across different development steps. This is where Projektron BCS comes in: Instead of struggling with isolated island solutions, BCS offers an integrated platform for project management, documentation, workflows, and quality assurance.

Automation: Less effort, more compliance

ASPICE requires complete traceability, but manual documentation is often tedious. With BCS, companies can automate central processes:

Automatic review workflows: Documents, requirements, or test cases go through standardized approval processes.

Linked requirements and test management processes: Each requirement can be linked directly to test cases and results in BCS.

Automatic reports: ASPICE-compliant reports can be generated at the touch of a button.

Process metrics & dashboards: Real-time overview of maturity, test coverage, and compliance.

See for yourself and try Projektron BCS free of charge and with no obligation!

Try BCS free of charge

“ASPICE is waterfall!” – This statement persists in the automotive industry. But it is only half the truth. Automotive SPICE (ASPICE) is a process-oriented standard with clear requirements for software and system development. Agile methods, on the other hand, rely on flexible, incremental development steps. At first glance, this sounds like a contradiction, but in practice, both approaches can not only coexist, they can even complement each other.

Opposites or perfect symbiosis?

The core conflict between ASPICE and agile methods lies in their basic philosophy:

Agile methods such as Scrum or SAFe (Scaled Agile Framework) rely on quick, small development steps, while ASPICE requires structured documentation and verifiable quality. However, this does not mean that companies that have to work in accordance with ASPICE should forego agile development. Rather, it is a matter of integrating agile principles into ASPICE-driven processes in a targeted manner.

How does the combination of ASPICE and agile methods work?

The combination of ASPICE and agility can be successful if companies leverage the respective strengths of both approaches and skillfully interlink them. Here are some best practices for successful integration:

Agile working with Scrum or SAFe within the ASPICE structure

Many automotive companies already rely on Scrum for software development. Development teams work in sprints lasting two to four weeks, develop initial prototypes, and test new functions iteratively.

Example: A team is developing software for a new control unit in an electric vehicle. While ASPICE requires full traceability of requirements through to testing, Scrum can be used to develop features in short cycles and obtain continuous feedback from stakeholders.

Scaled agility with SAFe: For larger ASPICE projects, the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) is a good choice, as it coordinates Scrum teams while taking regulatory requirements into account. While individual teams work in an agile manner, SAFe ensures overall planning, strategy, and compliance.

Documentation in line with ASPICE requirements

ASPICE requires detailed documentation, while agile methods tend to favor lean, needs-based documentation. The key lies in automated and integrated documentation.

Practical implementation:

Requirements and architecture are recorded directly in agile tools such as JIRA or Polarion and linked to ASPICE process models.

Instead of excessive documentation requirements, companies rely on living documents: automated reports generated from already recorded work results ensure transparency without unnecessary overhead.

Code reviews and tests are integrated directly into the agile development process and documented automatically.

Automated metrics for quality control

A common criticism of agile methods is the perceived lack of quality assurance and control. ASPICE, on the other hand, sets clear quality requirements and requires a traceable evaluation of the development processes.

The use of automated metrics combines the advantages of both approaches:

Code analysis tools (e.g., SonarQube, Polyspace) monitor compliance with ASPICE quality standards in agile development teams.

Test automation ensures that every incremental change is checked immediately. This ensures that there is no loss of quality, even in fast sprint cycles.

CI/CD pipelines (continuous integration/continuous deployment) enable software to be delivered iteratively, while ASPICE-compliant reviews and approvals are ensured by defined gateways.

Conclusion: ASPICE and agility – the best of both worlds

Instead of viewing ASPICE and agile methods as opposites, companies should leverage the respective strengths of both approaches. While ASPICE ensures structure, traceability, and quality, agility enables flexibility, rapid development steps, and continuous feedback.

Successful integration is achieved through:

Scrum or SAFe for iterative development within the ASPICE process landscape

Automated, integrated documentation in line with ASPICE specifications

Use of metrics and automation for quality assurance

The implementation of Automotive SPICE offers companies numerous advantages that pay off both in the short term in product development and in the long term in terms of competitiveness. It is not just a matter of meeting regulatory requirements, but also of strategic optimizations and efficiency gains.

Improved development processes and product quality

Automotive SPICE helps companies standardize and implement development processes in a structured manner. This leads to:

Reduced error rates: Defined processes and quality controls enable errors to be identified and avoided at an early stage.

More efficient collaboration: Teams work according to clear guidelines, minimizing misunderstandings.

Better traceability: All changes and requirements are documented, which facilitates subsequent adjustments.

A comparison of the effects of ASPICE on the development process:

Greater market access opportunities through ASPICE certifications

Certification according to Automotive SPICE is a decisive factor for suppliers in the automotive industry. Many OEMs require a high ASPICE rating as a prerequisite for working with suppliers. The most important advantages:

Trustworthiness: An ASPICE level of 3 or higher signals to customers that the company uses structured and high-quality development processes.

Better business relationships: Many automotive manufacturers prefer or require ASPICE-compliant suppliers.

Legal certainty: Documentation and standardized implementation help minimize risks related to product liability and safety requirements.

Competitive advantages and long-term cost savings

ASPICE not only brings regulatory advantages, but also financial ones:

Reduced development costs: Early error detection prevents costly rework in late development phases.

Better planning: Clear processes enable more accurate estimation of development time and costs.

Higher efficiency: Automated testing and structured processes lead to faster and more resource-efficient development.

See for yourself: You can try Projektron BCS free of charge and with no obligation!

Try BCS free of charge

Automotive SPICE has long been more than just a regulatory requirement—it is a key building block for companies that want to be successful in the long term. In an industry that is becoming increasingly complex due to digitalization, e-mobility, and autonomous driving, a structured and quality-oriented development process is becoming increasingly important.

Summary of the most important findings

ASPICE improves product quality and development processes through clear structures and quality controls.

Companies with ASPICE certification have better chances of becoming suppliers to large OEMs.

The long-term cost savings achieved through error prevention and increased efficiency are a decisive competitive advantage.

Significance for future technologies such as e-mobility and autonomous driving

Future vehicle technologies depend on reliable, safe software. Especially for:

E-mobility: Battery management systems and control units require high-quality software to ensure safety and efficiency.

Autonomous driving: Driver assistance systems must meet the highest safety standards – ASPICE helps to demonstrably fulfill this standard.

Cybersecurity: With ISO 21434, ASPICE is also moving into the focus of cybersecurity for vehicles.

Final recommendations for companies

For companies in the automotive industry, there is hardly any way around Automotive SPICE. The following measures will help ensure successful implementation:

Step-by-step implementation: ASPICE does not have to be implemented immediately at Level 3 or higher – a gradual introduction reduces risks.

Training and awareness: Employees should be regularly trained in ASPICE processes to increase awareness and acceptance.

Use of suitable tools: ALM and PLM software can facilitate compliance with ASPICE requirements and leverage automation potential.

Integration into existing processes: ASPICE should be seen as a support rather than an additional bureaucratic burden.

Companies that take Automotive SPICE seriously benefit in the long term from more robust processes, better products, and a stronger market position. So it is not a question of whether ASPICE is the future of automotive development, but how quickly companies adapt to it.