| Recurring |
one_organization |
(a) The software failure incident at AMT Sybex seems to be a recurring issue within the same organization. The article mentions that the new software system developed by AMT Sybex for tracing animal movements and disease had significant issues and was not up to the quality standard. The company was working to resolve these issues, and there were ongoing discussions about a rectification plan [96187].
(b) There is no specific mention in the article about similar software failure incidents happening at other organizations. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is related to the design phase. The article mentions that the new system developed by AMT Sybex to trace animal movements and disease had significant issues that delayed its roll-out. The Department of Agriculture official mentioned that the software received from the company responsible had not been up to the "quality standard," indicating a failure in the design or development phase [96187].
(b) The software failure incident in the article is also related to the operation phase. The article highlights that the new software had a "high level of defects," which suggests that there were issues with the operation or functioning of the system itself. Additionally, the delays in the roll-out of the new system could be attributed to operational challenges faced during its implementation [96187]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident mentioned in the article is primarily attributed to issues within the system itself. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Daera) official Brian Doherty highlighted that the software received from the company responsible had not been up to the "quality standard" and that there were ongoing discussions about a "rectification plan" to address the defects [96187]. Additionally, the chairman of the committee, Mr. McAleer, expressed shock at the high level of defects in the new software system [96187].
(b) outside_system: There is no explicit mention in the article of contributing factors originating from outside the system that led to the software failure incident. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the article seems to be primarily related to non-human actions, specifically issues with the software itself. The article mentions that the software received from the company responsible had not been up to the "quality standard" and that there were ongoing discussions about a "rectification plan" to resolve the issues [96187].
(b) While the article does not explicitly mention any specific human actions contributing to the software failure incident, it does highlight that the new software had a "high level of defects" which could potentially be attributed to human factors such as inadequate testing, development processes, or oversight [96187]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The software failure incident in the article does not specifically mention any hardware-related issues that contributed to the failure. It primarily focuses on software issues such as the new system not meeting the quality standard, having a high level of defects, and the need for a rectification plan [96187].
(b) The software failure incident in the article is primarily attributed to software-related issues. The article mentions that the software received from the company responsible for the new system was not up to the quality standard, resulting in ongoing discussions about a rectification plan. Additionally, it is highlighted that the new software had a high level of defects, which was shocking to the committee chairman [96187]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The articles do not mention any indication of malicious intent behind the software failure incident. It appears to be a non-malicious failure caused by issues with the software itself and its quality standard, leading to delays and the need for a rectification plan [96187]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident reported in the article indicates poor decisions as a contributing factor. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Daera) official mentioned that the software received from the company responsible had not been up to the "quality standard" despite £10.9m being spent on the new system since April 2016. Additionally, the chairman of the committee expressed shock upon learning that the new software had a "high level of defects" [96187]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence |
(a) The software failure incident in the article seems to be related to development incompetence. The article mentions that the software received from the company responsible for the new system was not up to the "quality standard" and had a "high level of defects" according to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee [96187].
(b) There is no specific mention of the software failure incident being accidental in the article. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident described in the article does not explicitly mention whether the failure is permanent or temporary. The article discusses significant issues and delays in the roll-out of the new system, ongoing discussions about a rectification plan, and the software not meeting the quality standard. These factors suggest that the failure could be temporary, caused by specific circumstances that can potentially be rectified through a plan or improvements. However, without further details on the resolution or the final outcome, it is not definitively stated whether the failure is permanent or temporary [96187]. |
| Behaviour |
omission, value, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in the article does not specifically mention a crash where the system loses state and does not perform any of its intended functions [96187].
(b) omission: The article mentions that the new software system meant to trace animal movements and disease had significant issues that delayed its roll-out, indicating an omission in performing its intended functions [96187].
(c) timing: There is no specific mention in the article of the software failure incident being related to timing issues where the system performed its intended functions too late or too early [96187].
(d) value: The failure of the software system in the article is related to the software received from the company responsible not meeting the "quality standard," indicating a failure in performing its intended functions correctly [96187].
(e) byzantine: The article does not describe the software failure incident as exhibiting byzantine behavior with inconsistent responses and interactions [96187].
(f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident in the article can be categorized as a failure due to the new system having a "high level of defects," which could be considered as a general software flaw impacting its functionality [96187]. |