Re: [SystemSafety] Analyzing far behind the Intended Use

From: Les Chambers < >
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 10:09:38 +1000


Haim
Your problem statement is brief, I am therefore making a lot of assumptions here. IFF the following is true:
This is something more than an arm's length product sale. Your customer is not just downloading your product from the web. In fact you have performed a hazard analysis for him. You have probably met the operators and know them personally. You are well aware of the modes in which your product may be used THEN:
This problem becomes a question of ethics. It is more than a legal process of protecting yourself.
 If in fact the consequences of misuse of your product are truly catastrophic, if you believe your own hazard analysis, have you considered withdrawing it from sale? The other option is to attempt to influence a client to spend the money required to make it safe in his context. I know he's said NO, so TRY HARDER!!! One way of achieving this is to prepare a use case scenario that could realistically lead to loss of life or destruction of property for your client. Ultimately it's up to you to look at this scenario through the lens of your company's statement of professional ethics. In 27 years in business I have attempted to adhere to the policy that dealing with my company is a pleasurable experience for all my clients. This extends to fixing problems even though they may not have been of my making.

So, if the probability of harm to your customer is real consider if you want that customer one day to stand in the marketplace and say I purchased this product from X and it killed some of my people. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. The outcome for your company could be
catastrophic.

> 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

--
Les Chambers
les_at_xxxxxx
+61 (0)412 648 992


_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx
Received on Fri Jan 01 2016 - 01:10:04 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Apr 25 2019 - 14:17:07 CEST