| Recurring |
unknown |
The articles do not mention any specific software failure incident related to either one_organization or multiple_organization. Therefore, the information to answer this question is 'unknown'. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
unknown |
The articles do not mention any software failure incident related to the development phases such as design or operation. Therefore, it is unknown whether the incident was caused by contributing factors introduced during system development, system updates, or procedures to operate or maintain the system. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system:
The software failure incident related to the collapse of the Mexico City subway Line 12 appears to be primarily within the system. The incident was attributed to a combination of factors such as structural deficiencies, lack of proper maintenance, and previous safety concerns within the subway system itself. Experts mentioned that there were signs of potential issues like uneven walls, cracks, and service interruptions that should have raised red flags about the safety of the line [114098].
(b) outside_system:
There is no specific mention in the articles of the software failure incident being caused by contributing factors originating from outside the system. The focus of the incident seems to be on internal factors such as maintenance, structural concerns, and operational issues within the Mexico City subway system itself [114098]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions:
The incident of the Mexico City subway Line 12 collapse was primarily attributed to structural deficiencies and maintenance issues rather than direct software failures. The collapse was linked to factors such as bent beams, damage to columns, and previous structural concerns [114098].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions:
The collapse of the Mexico City subway Line 12 was also associated with human actions, including allegations of corruption, negligence, and mismanagement in the construction and maintenance of the subway line. There were concerns raised about the high cost of the project, corruption allegations, and the inability of authorities to address safety and operational issues effectively [114098]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
unknown |
The articles do not mention any software failure incident related to either hardware or software. Therefore, the information about the software or hardware failure incident is unknown. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
unknown |
The articles do not mention any software failure incident related to either a malicious or non-malicious objective. Therefore, it is unknown whether the software failure incident was caused by malicious or non-malicious factors. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
unknown |
The articles do not mention any software failure incident related to poor decisions or accidental decisions. Therefore, the intent of the software failure incident in this case is unknown. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
accidental |
(a) The articles do not mention any software failure incident related to development incompetence.
(b) The collapse of the Mexico City subway Line 12, leading to the deadly elevated rail collapse, was not directly attributed to a software failure incident. The incident was primarily linked to structural concerns, maintenance issues, and a combination of factors such as corruption, negligence, and mistakes in the project execution [114098]. |
| Duration |
unknown |
The software failure incident related to the Mexico City subway Line 12 collapse does not directly involve a software failure. Therefore, there is no information in the provided article to determine whether the incident was a permanent or temporary software failure. |
| Behaviour |
crash, omission, timing, value, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident related to the collapse of the Mexico City subway Line 12 can be likened to a crash. The collapse of the elevated rail resulted in the system losing its state and failing to perform its intended function of safely transporting passengers. The incident led to at least 26 deaths and numerous injuries, highlighting a catastrophic failure in the system [114098].
(b) omission: The software failure incident can also be associated with omission. Over the years, there were signs of structural issues and red flags that were not adequately addressed by authorities, leading to the omission of necessary maintenance and safety measures. This omission ultimately contributed to the tragic collapse of the subway line [114098].
(c) timing: The timing of the software failure incident can be considered in terms of the delayed response to safety concerns and the late implementation of necessary maintenance and repairs. Despite previous shutdowns and structural concerns, the corrective actions were taken too late, resulting in the collapse occurring when it could have been prevented with timely intervention [114098].
(d) value: The software failure incident can also be related to a failure in value. The high cost of the construction of Line 12, coupled with corruption allegations and budget overruns, indicates a failure in delivering the intended value to the public. The project was marred by inefficiencies and mismanagement, leading to a situation where the value delivered did not align with the resources invested [114098].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not directly align with a byzantine behavior, which involves inconsistent responses and interactions within a system. However, the incident does involve a combination of factors such as corruption, negligence, and structural deficiencies that collectively contributed to the collapse. While not exhibiting Byzantine characteristics in the traditional sense, the incident can be seen as a result of a complex and problematic system [114098].
(f) other: The software failure incident can be characterized by other behaviors such as negligence and systemic failures. The collapse of Line 12 was not just a technical failure but also a failure of governance, oversight, and accountability. The incident underscores a systemic issue where warnings were dismissed, maintenance was neglected, and safety concerns were not adequately addressed, leading to a catastrophic outcome [114098]. |