Recurring |
one_organization |
(a) The software failure incident having happened again at one_organization:
The article mentions that Dexcom experienced a similar outage less than a year ago, on Dec. 31, which it resolved within a day [92979]. This indicates that Dexcom has faced similar software failure incidents in the past.
(b) The software failure incident having happened again at multiple_organization:
There is no specific mention in the article about similar incidents 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 it mentions that the outage occurred because the company's servers unexpectedly became overloaded, leading to the service outage [92979]. This indicates that there may have been issues related to the system design or capacity planning that contributed to the failure.
(b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase is evident in the article where users were relying on the Dexcom Follow feature to alert them to nighttime emergencies, but the service went down without warning, impacting the operation and use of the system [92979]. This highlights a failure in the operation or functioning of the system that affected users' ability to monitor critical information. |
Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident with Dexcom's G6 continuous glucose monitor was due to internal factors within the system. The outage occurred because Dexcom's servers unexpectedly became overloaded, leading to the service disruption [92979]. Dexcom's chief technology officer mentioned that a "large portion" of Dexcom's users were affected by the outage, indicating an internal issue within the system [92979].
(b) outside_system: There is no specific mention in the article about the software failure incident being caused by contributing factors originating from outside the system. |
Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in Article 92979 occurred due to non-human actions. Specifically, the Dexcom service outage was attributed to the company's servers unexpectedly becoming overloaded, leading to the disruption in service affecting a large portion of users [92979]. |
Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident related to hardware:
- The outage of the Dexcom Follow service was due to the company's servers unexpectedly becoming overloaded, which is a hardware-related issue [92979].
(b) The software failure incident related to software:
- The Dexcom Follow service outage was primarily caused by the company's servers becoming overloaded, indicating a software-related issue in managing server capacity and performance [92979]. |
Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident related to the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor was non-malicious. The outage occurred because the company's servers unexpectedly became overloaded, leading to the service disruption. Dexcom's chief technology officer, Jake Leach, mentioned that it was not the first time the service went dark, indicating that it was a technical issue rather than a malicious attack [92979].
(b) The software failure incident was non-malicious as there is no indication in the article that the outage was caused by any malicious intent. The chief executive of Dexcom, Kevin Sayer, expressed regret for letting users down and not alerting them to the outage sooner, emphasizing the company's commitment to fixing the disruption and improving user interactions [92979]. |
Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions, accidental_decisions |
The software failure incident related to the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor outage can be attributed to both poor decisions and accidental decisions.
1. Poor Decisions:
The incident can be linked to poor decisions in terms of communication and response strategy by Dexcom. Users expressed frustration that Dexcom did not announce the outage until several hours after it began, leading to a lack of awareness and preparedness among affected individuals [92979].
2. Accidental Decisions:
The outage itself was described as unexpected, with Dexcom's chief technology officer mentioning that the servers became overloaded unexpectedly, leading to the service disruption [92979]. This indicates that the outage was not a deliberate action but rather an unintended consequence of server overload. |
Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is evident in the article as Dexcom's chief technology officer, Jake Leach, mentioned that the outage occurred because the company's servers unexpectedly became overloaded. This indicates a lack of proper capacity planning or scalability measures in the system's design and implementation, which can be attributed to development incompetence [92979].
(b) The software failure incident also appears to have an accidental aspect as Dexcom's chief executive, Kevin Sayer, expressed regret for letting users down and not alerting them to the outage sooner. This indicates that the failure was not intentional but rather an unintended consequence of the system's performance issues [92979]. |
Duration |
temporary |
(a) The software failure incident described in the articles was temporary. The Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor suffered a service outage, leaving thousands of people without critical information for a period of time. The affected service, Dexcom Follow, was partly restored by Monday morning [Article 92979]. This indicates that the failure was not permanent but rather a temporary disruption in service. |
Behaviour |
crash, omission, timing, value, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor case can be categorized as a crash. The service outage caused the system to lose its state and not perform its intended function of sending alerts to users about their glucose levels, leading to potentially life-threatening situations [92979].
(b) omission: The software failure incident can also be classified as an omission. Users reported that the system omitted to perform its intended function of sending alerts when glucose levels required urgent action, resulting in instances where users did not receive critical notifications [92979].
(c) timing: The timing of the software failure incident is also relevant. The system was not performing its intended functions at the right time, as users were relying on it to alert them to nighttime emergencies, but the outage occurred during that critical period, causing delays in receiving necessary information [92979].
(d) value: The software failure incident can be associated with a failure in value. The system was not performing its intended functions correctly, as users did not receive accurate alerts about their glucose levels, leading to situations where individuals had dangerously low blood sugar levels without being notified [92979].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not align with a byzantine failure, which involves inconsistent responses and interactions. In this case, the system's failure was more about losing its state and omitting critical functions rather than providing inconsistent or conflicting information [92979].
(f) other: The other behavior observed in this software failure incident is the lack of timely communication and transparency from the company regarding the outage. Users expressed frustration over the delayed notification about the issue, highlighting the importance of clear and prompt communication during such incidents to manage user expectations and safety concerns [92979]. |