| Recurring |
one_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to Mercedes' Formula One team happened within the same organization. The incident occurred during the season-opening Australian Grand Prix, where a computer bug in an offline tool led to an incorrect calculation of the margin needed for Lewis Hamilton to retake the lead from Sebastian Vettel [69436]. The team conducted an extensive analysis and implemented processes to prevent a repeat of the issue in the future.
(b) There is no information in the provided article about a similar software failure incident happening at other organizations or with their products and services. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design |
(a) The software failure incident in the article was related to the design phase. The issue was identified in an offline tool used for creating delta lap times, which led to an incorrect calculation of the margin needed for Lewis Hamilton to retake the lead from Sebastian Vettel during the Australian Grand Prix. The bug in the tool caused the team to misjudge the required margin, ultimately costing Hamilton the victory [69436].
(b) The software failure incident in the article was not related to the operation phase. There was no indication that the failure was caused by the operation or misuse of the system. Instead, the issue was traced back to a bug in the offline tool used for calculations during the race [69436]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is within_system. The issue was identified as a bug in an offline tool used by Mercedes to create delta lap times, which led to miscalculations in the race strategy for Lewis Hamilton at the Australian Grand Prix [69436]. The bug in the tool caused the team to misjudge the required margin for Hamilton to retake the lead from Sebastian Vettel, ultimately affecting the race outcome. The team conducted an extensive analysis and implemented processes internally to prevent a recurrence of such software failures in the future. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the Formula One race was due to a non-human action, specifically a computer bug in an offline tool used by Mercedes to create delta lap times. This bug led to incorrect calculations, causing Lewis Hamilton to lose the lead to Sebastian Vettel during the Australian Grand Prix [69436].
(b) Human actions were involved in the response to the software failure incident. After the race, Mercedes conducted an extensive analysis and put processes in place to prevent a repeat of the issue. This indicates that human actions were taken to address the software failure and ensure it does not happen again in future races [69436]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The software failure incident reported in Article 69436 was not due to hardware issues but rather a software bug. The Trackside engineering director mentioned that the problem was with an offline tool used to create delta lap times, not with the race strategy software. This bug in the tool led to the miscalculation of the margin needed for Lewis Hamilton to retake the lead from Sebastian Vettel during the Australian Grand Prix [69436]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article is non-malicious. The failure was attributed to a computer bug in an offline tool used for creating delta lap times, which led to incorrect calculations affecting the race strategy for Lewis Hamilton at the Australian Grand Prix [69436]. The issue was identified as a bug in the tool rather than a deliberate act to harm the system. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
accidental_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident in Article 69436 was not due to poor decisions but rather an accidental decision. The failure was attributed to a computer bug found in an offline tool used for creating delta lap times, which led to incorrect calculations affecting Lewis Hamilton's race strategy at the Australian Grand Prix. The issue was not with the race strategy software as initially suspected, but with this offline tool, indicating that the failure was accidental rather than a result of poor decisions [69436]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
accidental |
(a) The software failure incident in Article 69436 was not due to development incompetence. The failure was attributed to a computer bug found in an offline tool used by Mercedes during the Australian Grand Prix. The bug in the tool led to incorrect calculations of the delta lap times, impacting the race strategy for Lewis Hamilton. The team identified the issue and took steps to prevent a recurrence, indicating that the failure was not due to development incompetence but rather a specific bug in the tool [69436].
(b) The software failure incident in Article 69436 was accidental. The issue was described as a bug in an offline tool used by Mercedes during the race, which led to incorrect calculations of the delta lap times. This bug was not intentional but accidental, causing the team to misjudge the margin needed for Hamilton to retain the lead. The team conducted an extensive analysis and implemented processes to prevent a similar incident in the future, indicating that the failure was accidental rather than deliberate [69436]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
(a) The software failure incident in this case was temporary. The article mentions that the issue was with an offline tool used to create delta lap times, not with the race strategy software itself. The bug in the tool gave the team the wrong number, leading to a miscalculation in the margin needed for Lewis Hamilton to retake the lead from Sebastian Vettel. Steps were taken to ensure this type of incident does not happen again in the future, indicating that it was a specific issue with the offline tool rather than a permanent flaw in the overall software system [69436]. |
| Behaviour |
omission, value, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in the article was not a crash where the system lost state and did not perform any of its intended functions. Instead, it was related to a bug in an offline tool used for creating delta lap times during the Australian Grand Prix [69436].
(b) omission: The software failure incident can be categorized as an omission where the system omitted to perform its intended functions at an instance. The bug in the offline tool led to the miscalculation of the delta lap times, causing Lewis Hamilton to lose the lead in the race due to incorrect information about the required margin to maintain [69436].
(c) timing: The timing of the software failure incident was not related to the system performing its intended functions correctly but too late or too early. Instead, the issue was with the accuracy of the calculations made by the tool, affecting the strategic decisions during the race [69436].
(d) value: The software failure incident falls under the category of a value failure where the system performed its intended functions incorrectly. The bug in the offline tool resulted in providing the team with the wrong number regarding the required margin for Lewis Hamilton to maintain the lead, leading to a strategic error during the race [69436].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident was not characterized by a byzantine behavior where the system behaved erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. The issue was more straightforward, involving a specific bug in the offline tool used for calculating delta lap times during the race [69436].
(f) other: The software failure incident can be categorized as a miscalculation or misinterpretation error. The bug in the offline tool caused incorrect calculations of the delta lap times, leading to a strategic mistake in the race that cost Lewis Hamilton the victory [69436]. |