Re: [SystemSafety] Software reliability (or whatever you would prefer to call it)

From: C. Michael Holloway < >
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 08:49:11 -0400


On 3/10/15 7:44 AM, Littlewood, Bev wrote:
> Ö But I donít think that the man in the street, contemplating his
> broken-down car (in the rain - letís pile on the pathos!), would be
> comforted to be told it was not unreliable, it just had /design/ faults.
I totally disagree. I think the man or woman on the street would understand the difference, and be far more annoyed at the latter than the former.
> And, of course, your interpretation seems to rule out the contribution
> of human fallibility (e.g. pilots) to the reliability and/or safety of
> systems. This seems socially unacceptable, at least to me.
No it doesn't. I am only saying that I think it is important to restrict the use of the term reliability (or to be more precise, the use of probabilities), not the range of factors that are considered when assessing safety.
-- 
/*cMh*/

*C. Michael Holloway*

The words in this message are mine alone; neither blame nor credit NASA 
for them.



_______________________________________________ The System Safety Mailing List systemsafety_at_xxxxxx
Received on Tue Mar 10 2015 - 13:49:20 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Apr 25 2019 - 09:17:07 CEST