Re: [SystemSafety] Analyzing far behind the Intended Use

From: Robert Schaefer < >
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:43:44 -0500

I’ve been told that a significant portion of the price of ladders in the U.S. goes to ladder manufacturers’ lawsuit defense.

> On Dec 30, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Rolf Spiker <rolf.spiker_at_xxxxxx >
> Hi Kuper,
> The real question is: Who is responsible if something is going wrong?
> Is this described clearly in the contract?
> What are the responsible boundaries of "Intended Use"
> If not clearly described you have a problem I think!
> <image002.png>
> Functional Safety, Security & Reliability > <>
> To view our Equipment database with certified elements go to: <>
> <image004.png>
> The information in this e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the person to whom it is addressed. If this message is not addressed to you, please be aware that you have no authorization to read the rest of this e-mail, to copy it or to furnish it to any person other than the addressee. Should you have received this e-mail by mistake, please bring this to the attention of the sender, after which you are kindly requested to destroy the original message. <> cannot be held responsible or liable in any way whatsoever for and/or in connection with any consequences and/or damage resulting from the proper and complete dispatch and receipt of the content of this e-mail
> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 3:13 AM
> To: systemsafety_at_xxxxxx > Subject: [SystemSafety] Analyzing far behind the Intended Use
> Hello everyone,
> What is your opinion regarding the following situation:
> The customer defines System-A to be used as "Advisory only". This fact defines what we call the "Intended Use" of the system.
> This Intendent use is the basis of System-A safety analysis, resulting with few hazards marked with CRITICAL severity.
> The operator of System-X is quite clever to use the system FAR BEHIND the Intendent use.
> If you analyze this "Extra-usage", you find hazards typed as CATASTROPHIC severity, and the mitigation of those hazards is quite expensive.
> We do wish to protect the operator activities. However, the customer will not pay the price of FAR BEHIND the Intendent use mitigation.
> How will you act under those constrains ?
> Thanks,
> Kuper
> !DSPAM:5684086f2748163845084! <oledata.mso>_______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety_at_xxxxxx >
> !DSPAM:5684086f2748163845084!

The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Wed Dec 30 2015 - 17:43:56 CET

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