| Recurring |
unknown |
The articles do not mention any specific software failure incident happening again at either the same organization (one_organization) or at multiple organizations (multiple_organization). Therefore, the information related to these options is unknown. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident related to the design phase is evident in the article as Crossrail admitted that more time was needed to develop the railway systems software. Insiders mentioned major issues reconciling the three different signalling systems, which contributed to delays in testing the Elizabeth line trains across central London [74861].
(b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase is implied in the article when workers were told to put things in and take them out, fitting out parts of stations, only to be later told they had been wrongly designed. This indicates issues arising from the operation or execution of the system, leading to delays and inefficiencies in the project [74861]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) The software failure incident related to the Crossrail project was primarily within the system. Crossrail admitted that they ran out of time to adequately test the Elizabeth line trains across central London and needed more time to develop the railway systems software [74861]. Additionally, there were major issues reconciling the three different signalling systems, which was an internal challenge faced by the project [74861]. The delays and issues with fitting out tracks, infrastructure, and stations were all internal factors contributing to the software failure incident within the system [74861]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions:
Crossrail admitted that they ran out of time to adequately test the Elizabeth line trains across central London, and more time was needed to develop the railway systems software [74861].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions:
Insiders mentioned major issues reconciling the three different signalling systems, and there were delays in fitting out tracks and other infrastructure in the central tunnels. Workers also referred to the scheme as the "hokey cokey" line, indicating confusion and errors in fitting out parts of stations [74861]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to hardware:
- The article mentions that contractors have missed deadlines to fit out the tracks and other infrastructure in the central tunnels, and more time is needed to develop the railway systems software [74861].
- An electrical explosion in east London last November took months to resolve and postponed testing, indicating hardware issues [74861].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to software:
- Crossrail admitted it ran out of time to adequately test the Elizabeth line trains across central London, indicating software-related issues [74861].
- Insiders spoke of major issues reconciling the three different signalling systems, pointing towards software challenges [74861]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident related to the Crossrail project does not appear to be malicious. The delays and issues with the railway systems software were attributed to missed deadlines by contractors, difficulties reconciling different signalling systems, and the need for more time to develop the software [74861]. There is no indication in the articles that the software failure was due to any malicious intent to harm the system. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident related to the Crossrail project seems to be more aligned with poor_decisions. The delays and issues with the Elizabeth line trains and railway systems software were a result of missed deadlines, inadequate testing, and major issues reconciling different signalling systems [74861]. Additionally, there were problems with fitting out parts of stations and design errors, indicating a lack of proper planning and decision-making in the project [74861]. The departure of key leaders before the project's delivery also raised questions about oversight and decision-making processes [74861]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is evident in the delays faced by Crossrail due to inadequate testing of the Elizabeth line trains and the need for more time to develop the railway systems software [74861].
(b) The software failure incident related to accidental factors is highlighted in the major issues faced in reconciling the three different signalling systems, as well as incidents like the electrical explosion in east London that took months to resolve and postponed testing [74861]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident related to the Crossrail project appears to be temporary rather than permanent. The delay in the project was primarily attributed to the inadequate time for testing the Elizabeth line trains and the need for more time to develop the railway systems software [74861]. Additionally, there were issues with reconciling different signalling systems and delays in fitting out tracks and infrastructure, which contributed to the temporary nature of the software failure incident. |
| Behaviour |
crash, omission, timing, value, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident related to the Crossrail project can be attributed to a crash. The article mentions that Crossrail ran out of time to adequately test the Elizabeth line trains across central London, and there were major issues reconciling the three different signalling systems, leading to delays and postponement of testing [74861].
(b) omission: The software failure incident can also be linked to omission. Workers were told to put things in and take them out, fitting out parts of stations, and then being told they had been wrongly designed. This indicates a failure of the system to perform its intended functions correctly at certain instances [74861].
(c) timing: The timing of the software failure incident is also a factor. The delays in fitting out tracks and infrastructure, as well as the need for more time to develop the railway systems software, point to a failure of the system to perform its intended functions correctly but too late [74861].
(d) value: The software failure incident can be associated with a failure in value as well. The delays and issues with Crossrail have led to a year's delay, potentially resulting in hundreds of millions of pounds in lost revenue and other fares rising, impacting the value proposition of the project [74861].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not directly align with a byzantine behavior as described in the articles.
(f) other: The software failure incident could also be categorized under the "other" behavior as it involved issues with fitting out parts of stations incorrectly designed, which may not fit directly into the crash, omission, timing, or value categories [74861]. |