| Recurring |
unknown |
The article does not mention any previous incidents of a similar nature happening again at Ocado or at other organizations. Therefore, it is unknown whether this software failure incident has happened before at one organization or multiple organizations. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design |
<Article 83945> The software failure incident at Ocado's distribution center in Andover was caused by an electrical fault in a battery that led to a robot catching fire. This incident can be attributed to a design failure as it was a result of an issue with the battery charging unit and the design of the grocery-carrying robot, which prompted the plastic lid to catch alight. The company took remedial actions to address the design flaw, such as adding additional localised smoke detectors, removing the plastic lid on the robots, and incorporating heat sensors in the storage grid [83945]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
The software failure incident at Ocado's distribution center in Andover was caused by an electrical fault in a battery that led to a robot catching fire [83945]. This incident can be categorized as within_system, as the failure originated from within the system itself, specifically from the battery charging unit and the robot within the distribution center. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions |
The software failure incident at Ocado's distribution center in Andover was caused by an electrical fault in a battery that prompted a robot to catch fire. This incident can be categorized as a non-human_actions failure, as it was due to an issue with the battery charging unit and the plastic lid on the grocery-carrying robot, rather than human actions [Article 83945]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware |
The software failure incident at Ocado's distribution center in Andover was caused by an electrical fault in a battery that led to a robot catching fire. This incident was attributed to hardware failure, specifically an electrical fault in a battery charging unit [Article 83945]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
The software failure incident at Ocado's distribution center in Andover, England, was non-malicious. The incident was caused by an electrical fault in a battery that led to a robot catching fire, as reported in Article 83945. The company took remedial actions to prevent such events in the future, including adding additional smoke detectors, removing the plastic lid on robots, and installing heat sensors in the storage grid. These actions indicate that the failure was not intentional but rather a result of technical issues. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
accidental_decisions |
The software failure incident at Ocado's distribution center in Andover, southern England, was caused by an electrical fault in a battery that led to a robot catching fire [Article 83945]. This incident could be categorized under "accidental_decisions" as it was a result of an unintended electrical fault rather than poor decisions. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
accidental |
The software failure incident at Ocado's distribution center in Andover was not directly attributed to development incompetence or accidental factors in the provided article [83945]. The incident was specifically mentioned to be caused by an electrical fault in a battery that led to a robot catching fire. |
| Duration |
unknown |
The article does not mention any specific information related to the duration of the software failure incident. Therefore, it is unknown whether the software failure incident was permanent or temporary based on the provided article. |
| Behaviour |
other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in the article was not specifically described as a crash where the system loses state and does not perform any of its intended functions [83945].
(b) omission: The incident did not involve the system omitting to perform its intended functions at an instance(s) [83945].
(c) timing: The failure was not related to the system performing its intended functions correctly but too late or too early [83945].
(d) value: The software failure incident was not attributed to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly [83945].
(e) byzantine: The article did not mention the failure as a result of the system behaving erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions [83945].
(f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident in the article was related to an electrical fault in a battery that caused a robot to catch fire, leading to a huge blaze that destroyed the distribution center. The incident was not directly related to the software's behavior but rather to a hardware issue with the battery charging unit [83945]. |