| Recurring |
one_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to Deloitte's audit of Autonomy's financial statements for 2009 and 2010 occurred within the same organization (Deloitte) as mentioned in Article 104924. Deloitte was fined a record 15 million pounds for its audit of Autonomy that contained "serious and serial failures." The incident involved Deloitte's audit work on Autonomy between 2009 and 2011 falling below the professional standards required. Deloitte has also been severely reprimanded and required to provide a "root cause" analysis of the reasons for the misconduct [104924].
(b) There is no information in the provided article about the software failure incident happening again at other organizations or with their products and services. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design |
(a) The software failure incident related to the design phase is evident in the article as it mentions the serious and serial failures in Deloitte's audit of software firm Autonomy. The Financial Reporting Council fined Deloitte for its audit work on Autonomy between 2009 and 2011, indicating that the failure was due to contributing factors introduced during the system development or updates [104924].
(b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase is not explicitly mentioned in the provided article. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system, outside_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident related to the audit of Autonomy by Deloitte was primarily due to serious and serial failures in their audit work on Autonomy's financial statements for 2009 and 2010. Deloitte, along with two of its former partners, were investigated for their audit practices that fell below the professional standards required. The failure was attributed to shortcomings in Deloitte's audit processes and practices during that time period [104924].
(b) outside_system: The software failure incident involving Autonomy's financial statements and the subsequent fallout with Hewlett Packard (HP) was triggered by allegations that HP was deceived by Autonomy's finances, leading to a significant write-off of the company's value. This failure was influenced by external factors such as the alleged deception in financial reporting by Autonomy, which originated from outside the auditing system [104924]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident related to the audit of software firm Autonomy by Deloitte was primarily attributed to non-human actions, specifically serious and serial failures in the audit process. The Financial Reporting Council fined Deloitte a record 15 million pounds for its audit of Autonomy that contained "serious and serial failures" [104924]. Deloitte was found to have fallen significantly short of the standards expected of an audit firm and its partners, indicating failures in the audit processes and controls [104924].
(b) Human actions were also involved in the software failure incident as two former partners of Deloitte, Richard Knights and Nigel Mercer, were investigated in relation to their audit of Autonomy’s financial statements for 2009 and 2010 [104924]. Knights and Mercer were fined and reprimanded by the Financial Reporting Council for their roles in the audit process, although they maintained that they had acted professionally, diligently, and in good faith [104924]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The software failure incident related to the audit of Autonomy by Deloitte was primarily attributed to "serious and serial failures" in the audit work conducted by Deloitte and its partners, Richard Knights and Nigel Mercer. The Financial Reporting Council fined Deloitte a record 15 million pounds for its audit of Autonomy, indicating that the failure was not directly linked to hardware issues but rather to deficiencies in the audit process and professional standards [104924].
(b) The software failure incident was specifically related to the audit of Autonomy's financial statements for 2009 and 2010, indicating that the failure originated in the software domain rather than hardware. Deloitte was found to have conducted audit work that fell below the professional standards required, leading to the significant financial repercussions faced by Autonomy and its subsequent acquisition by Hewlett Packard [104924]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident related to the audit of Autonomy by Deloitte was non-malicious. The failure was attributed to "serious and serial failures" in Deloitte's audit work on Autonomy's financial statements for 2009 and 2010 [104924]. The Financial Reporting Council fined Deloitte for falling below professional standards in their audit practices during that period. Deloitte and its former partners were reprimanded and fined, indicating that the failure was not due to malicious intent but rather due to shortcomings in their audit processes and practices. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident related to the audit of Autonomy by Deloitte was primarily attributed to poor decisions. The Financial Reporting Council fined Deloitte a record 15 million pounds for its audit of Autonomy that contained "serious and serial failures" [104924]. Deloitte was severely reprimanded for aspects of its audit work falling below professional standards, indicating that poor decisions were made during the audit process. Additionally, the FRC tribunal concluded that the audit work fell significantly short of the standards expected of an audit firm and its partners, further highlighting the poor decisions that led to the failure [104924]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence |
(a) The software failure incident related to the audit of software firm Autonomy by Deloitte was attributed to "serious and serial failures" in their audit work between 2009 and 2011. The Financial Reporting Council fined Deloitte a record 15 million pounds for these failures, indicating a lack of professional competence in their audit practices [104924].
(b) The software failure incident was not explicitly mentioned as accidental in the provided article. |
| Duration |
permanent |
The software failure incident related to the audit of Autonomy by Deloitte was not a temporary failure but rather a permanent one. The audit work conducted by Deloitte on Autonomy between 2009 and 2011 was found to have fallen significantly short of the professional standards required, leading to a record fine and severe reprimands for the individuals involved [104924]. This indicates that the failure was not due to specific circumstances but rather a result of ongoing issues and deficiencies in the audit practices and processes during that period. |
| Behaviour |
other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in this case does not involve a crash where the system loses state and does not perform any of its intended functions. The failure is related to audit work falling significantly short of the standards expected, leading to a record fine for Deloitte [104924].
(b) omission: The software failure incident is not described as a case of omission where the system omits to perform its intended functions at an instance(s). Instead, the failure is attributed to aspects of the audit work falling below the professional standards required by the Financial Reporting Council [104924].
(c) timing: The failure is not related to timing issues where the system performs its intended functions correctly but too late or too early. The focus of the incident is on the quality of the audit work conducted by Deloitte in relation to Autonomy's financial statements for 2009 and 2010 [104924].
(d) value: The software failure incident is not characterized by the system performing its intended functions incorrectly, leading to a failure. The issue in this case revolves around the audit work on Autonomy, which was deemed to have fallen below the professional standards required by the FRC [104924].
(e) byzantine: The failure is not described as a byzantine failure where the system behaves erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. The primary concern is the quality of the audit work conducted by Deloitte and its former partners in relation to Autonomy's financial statements [104924].
(f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident is related to the audit work conducted by Deloitte, which was found to have serious and serial failures in its audit of Autonomy. The failure is attributed to the audit work falling significantly short of the standards expected, leading to a record fine and sanctions by the FRC [104924]. |