Re: [SystemSafety] Paper on Software Reliability and the Urn Model

From: Derek M Jones < >
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 11:27:50 +0000


On 25/02/2015 10:37, jean-louis Boulanger wrote:

> 2015-02-25 10:00 GMT+01:00 Peter Bernard Ladkin <ladkin_at_xxxxxx

>> I have recently been involved in discussions concerning rewriting IEC
>> 61508-7:2010 Annex D, a short
>> informative section attempting to explain the statistical evaluation of
>> the reliability of SW for
>> which there is an operational history.

Calculating reliability is in the details. Are there enough details in the operational history?

> For the software, no evaluation of reliability are acceptable or > representative.

It is more accurate to say the cost of providing an evaluation of software reliability that is sufficiently accurate is greater than people are willing to pay.

>> Some professionals don't even like the urn model for explaining SW
>> reliability (you know who you
>> are! :-) ). But I think it's pretty good for some purposes, even though in

A model that does not reflect reality is one good reason for not liking the urn model.

But the urn model does has a level of brand name recognition that none of the other models have.

Nature abhors a vacuum and the urn model is an easy sell. Nobody has good enough data that an alternative model would need to overcome the brand name advantage of the urn model.

Derek M. Jones           Software analysis
tel: +44 (0)1252 520667
The System Safety Mailing List
Received on Wed Feb 25 2015 - 12:27:44 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jun 04 2019 - 21:17:07 CEST