Re: Failure Taxonomy



Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Jon Davies (jon.davies(at)gasl.co.uk)
Sat, 11 Jan 1997 10:55:36 -0000


Peter Ladkin said: > Good point, David. Let me add another: Inappropriate operator behavior. > [... and more] ... and of course, as he pointed out, this means that you're dealing with a "system" that includes people. So you end up with a whole set of errors that relate to ways in which the human fails within the total system, causing failures of the system as a whole. This actually gets back to where I started, which was looking at ways in which humans fail, where I've come across lots of different classification systems for human error (see for example B. Kirwan "a guide to practical human reliability assessment", Taylor&Francis 1994, p128), where you get the usual things like errors of commission, omission, extraneous acts, rule violation, etc. It was studying human error that got me thinking that it should be possible to do the same sort of thing for a general purpose computer, hence my original quesiton about failure taxonomies for computers! Cheers, Jon. -- Jon Davies, GEC ALSTHOM Signalling Limited, PO Box 146, Manchester. M60 1AX Tel: +44 (161) 875 2082 Fax: +44 (161) 875 2085 Email: jdavies(at)iee.org


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view