| Recurring |
unknown |
(a) The software failure incident related to Volvo's self-driving car being unable to detect kangaroos due to their hopping movement is specific to Volvo. There is no mention in the article of a similar incident happening before within the same organization or with its products and services.
(b) The article does not mention any similar incident happening at other organizations or with their products and services. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident related to the design phase can be seen in the article where Volvo's self-driving car was unable to detect kangaroos due to the unique movement of the animals. The article mentions that the company's "Large Animal Detection system" was initially designed to identify and avoid animals like deer, elk, and caribou but faced challenges in adjusting to the kangaroo's hopping movement. This design limitation was discovered during testing in Australia, highlighting a failure in the design phase of the autonomous driving technology [60129].
(b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase can be inferred from the article where Volvo's Australian technical manager, David Pickett, explained that the troubles with detecting kangaroos arose because their cars' object detection systems used the ground as a reference point. This operational limitation led to difficulties in judging the distance of kangaroos, especially when they were in the air hopping. Therefore, the operation of the system, specifically how it interacted with the environment and detected objects, contributed to the failure in detecting kangaroos effectively [60129]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident related to Volvo's self-driving car not being able to detect kangaroos due to their hopping confounding the system is a result of factors originating from within the system. The article mentions that the trouble arose because the cars' object detection systems used the ground as a reference point, making it difficult to judge the distance of kangaroos when they are hopping [60129]. This indicates that the issue is internal to the system's design and detection mechanisms. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in this case is related to non-human actions. Volvo's self-driving car's inability to detect kangaroos was due to the unique movement of kangaroos confounding its systems. The managing director of Volvo Australia mentioned that the troubles arose because their cars' object detection systems used the ground as a reference point, making it difficult to judge the distance of kangaroos when they were hopping in the air [60129]. The software failure was a result of the inherent nature of kangaroos' movement, which was not intentionally introduced by humans but rather a challenge faced during the development and testing of driverless technology. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware |
(a) The software failure incident related to hardware:
- The article mentions that Volvo's self-driving car had trouble detecting kangaroos due to the unique movement of the animals, specifically their hopping behavior. This issue was attributed to the cars' object detection systems using the ground as a reference point, which made it difficult to judge the distance of kangaroos when they were in the air versus on the ground [60129].
(b) The software failure incident related to software:
- The software failure incident in this case was not directly attributed to software issues but rather to the challenge of adapting the software to recognize and adjust to the unique movement patterns of kangaroos. The article highlights that Volvo was working on developing technology to recognize kangaroos as part of the ongoing development of autonomous cars [60129]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident related to the inability of Volvo's self-driving car to detect kangaroos is non-malicious. The failure was due to the unique movement of kangaroos confounding the car's "Large Animal Detection system" rather than any malicious intent by humans [60129]. The company's managing director mentioned that the discovery of this issue was part of the development and testing of driverless technology, indicating a non-malicious nature of the incident. Additionally, the article highlights the efforts made by Volvo to gather data on how animals move and behave to improve the system's understanding, further supporting the non-malicious nature of the failure. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
unknown |
(a) The software failure incident related to Volvo's self-driving car being unable to detect kangaroos due to their hopping movement does not seem to be a result of poor decisions. Instead, it appears to be a challenge faced during the development and testing of driverless technology. The company's managing director mentioned that this discovery was part of the ongoing development process for autonomous cars and that gathering data on how animals move and behave is essential for the computers to understand it better [60129].
(b) The incident does not indicate that the failure was due to accidental decisions or mistakes. It is portrayed as a technical challenge that arose during the testing phase of the self-driving car technology, specifically in adapting the object detection system to recognize the unique movement of kangaroos. The article emphasizes the continuous development of autonomous cars and the need to address various environmental factors and conditions to enhance the technology [60129]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
accidental |
(a) The software failure incident in this case does not seem to be related to development incompetence. The article mentions that Volvo's self-driving car was unable to detect kangaroos due to the unique movement of the animals, specifically their hopping, which confounded the car's systems. This issue was discovered during testing in Australia, and Volvo's engineers were gathering data on how the animals move and behave to improve the system [60129].
(b) The software failure incident appears to be accidental. Volvo's Australian technical manager mentioned that the trouble with detecting kangaroos arose because their cars' object detection systems used the ground as a reference point, making it difficult to judge the distance of kangaroos when they were in the air versus on the ground. This accidental factor of using the ground as a reference point led to the difficulty in detecting kangaroos due to their hopping movement [60129]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident described in the articles can be categorized as a temporary failure. The incident where Volvo's self-driving car was unable to detect kangaroos due to their unique hopping movement was a temporary issue caused by specific circumstances related to the kangaroo's behavior [60129]. The company acknowledged this issue as part of the ongoing development and testing of their driverless technology, indicating that it was a specific challenge that needed to be addressed through data gathering and adjustments to the detection system. The software failure was not permanent but rather a temporary setback that required further refinement and development to overcome. |
| Behaviour |
omission, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident described in the article is not related to a crash where the system loses state and does not perform any of its intended functions. Instead, it focuses on the inability of Volvo's self-driving car to detect kangaroos due to their unique movement patterns [60129].
(b) omission: The issue with Volvo's self-driving car not being able to detect kangaroos can be categorized as an omission failure. The system is omitting to perform its intended function of accurately detecting and responding to kangaroos due to the hopping movement confusing its detection systems [60129].
(c) timing: There is no indication in the article that the software failure incident is related to timing issues where the system performs its intended functions too late or too early. The focus is on the system's inability to detect kangaroos accurately [60129].
(d) value: The software failure incident is not attributed to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly in terms of the value provided. Instead, it is about the system's inability to detect kangaroos effectively due to their unique movement patterns [60129].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not exhibit characteristics of a byzantine failure where the system behaves erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. The issue with kangaroo detection is more about the system's limitations in understanding the animal's movements [60129].
(f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident can be categorized as a limitation in the system's object detection capabilities when it comes to unique animal movements like kangaroos' hopping. This can be seen as a specific type of failure related to environmental adaptation and animal behavior recognition, which is not explicitly covered in the provided options [60129]. |