| Recurring |
multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident having happened again at one_organization:
The article does not provide information about a similar incident happening again within the same organization or with its products and services. Therefore, it is unknown if a similar incident has occurred before at this specific organization [32742].
(b) The software failure incident having happened again at multiple_organization:
The article mentions that several train companies asked commuters to tweet them for live travel details as complaints about a lack of announcements or information from station staff flooded social media. This indicates that similar incidents related to software failures affecting live train information and causing chaos for commuters have occurred at multiple organizations or within the transportation industry [32742]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident in the article was attributed to a 'server crash' which caused a loss of data to train operators' information systems. This indicates a failure related to the design or development phase, where the servers providing information to display screens crashed and had to be restarted, leading to a disruption in the train information systems [32742].
(b) The article also mentions that the glitch caused smartphone apps tracking live train arrivals to show incorrect times, leading to confusion among passengers. This aspect of the incident could be related to the operation phase, as it affected the usability and accuracy of the system during its normal operation [32742]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) The software failure incident reported in Article 32742 was within_system. The failure was attributed to a 'server crash' within the system, specifically the servers responsible for providing information to display screens [32742]. The article mentions that the server crash caused a loss of data to train operators' information systems, leading to disruptions in live train information displays and smartphone apps tracking train arrivals. The incident was resolved after the server was restarted, indicating an internal system issue. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident occurred due to non-human actions, specifically a 'server crash' which was responsible for the problem on the railways. Network Rail mentioned that the servers providing information to display screens crashed and had to be restarted, causing a loss of data to train operators' information systems [32742].
(b) The software failure incident also involved human actions as passengers complained about the lack of announcements or information from station staff, leading to confusion and chaos at the stations. Commuters had to rely on tweeting train companies for live travel details due to the lack of accurate information on station screens and from staff [32742]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident in Article 32742 was attributed to a hardware issue. Specifically, it was mentioned that a 'server crash' was responsible for the problem, causing a loss of data to train operators' information systems [32742].
(b) The software failure incident in Article 32742 was also related to software issues. It was stated that the servers providing information to display screens crashed, leading to a loss of data and incorrect information being displayed on station screens and smartphone apps tracking live train arrivals [32742]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident described in Article 32742 was non-malicious. The incident was attributed to a 'server crash' that caused a loss of data to train operators' information systems. Network Rail mentioned that the servers providing information to display screens crashed and had to be restarted, resulting in a backlog of data processing before the systems could catch up. This indicates that the failure was not caused by malicious intent but rather by technical issues [32742]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident described in Article 32742 was primarily due to poor decisions. The incident was caused by a 'server crash' which wiped out station information screens, leading to chaos for commuters. The failure resulted in missing or incorrect train information on screens and smartphone apps, causing confusion and delays for passengers [32742]. The decision to not have proper backup systems or redundancy in place for the servers likely contributed to the severity of the incident. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
accidental |
(a) The software failure incident in the article was not explicitly attributed to development incompetence. The issue was described as a 'server crash' that caused a loss of data to train operators' information systems, leading to disruptions in live train information and station displays [32742].
(b) The software failure incident in the article was described as a result of a 'server crash' that caused a loss of data to train operators' information systems. This indicates that the failure was accidental and not intentional [32742]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article was temporary. The article mentions that a 'server crash' was responsible for the problem, which started in the middle of the morning rush hour and took at least two hours to resolve. Some passengers were still complaining of problems at 1.20pm, indicating that the issue was not permanent and was eventually resolved [32742]. |
| Behaviour |
crash, omission, value, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in the article was described as a "server crash" which caused a loss of data to train operators' information systems, leading to a disruption in live train information displays and smartphone apps tracking train arrivals [32742].
(b) omission: The incident resulted in missing or incorrect train information on station screens and smartphone apps, causing confusion among passengers and leading to complaints about missing trains or getting on the wrong ones due to the lack of accurate information [32742].
(c) timing: The system was not only failing to display accurate information but also causing delays in processing and updating the data feeds to train operators' information systems. This resulted in a backlog of data that needed to be processed once the server was restarted, causing delays in providing real-time information to passengers [32742].
(d) value: The software failure incident led to the system providing incorrect train arrival times on smartphone apps, with many falsely indicating significant delays. This incorrect information caused passengers to miss trains or make incorrect decisions based on the inaccurate data displayed [32742].
(e) byzantine: The incident did not specifically mention the system behaving with inconsistent responses or interactions. Instead, it focused on the direct impact of the server crash on the display of train information and the delays in processing data feeds [32742].
(f) other: The software failure incident also resulted in a lack of announcements or information from station staff, further exacerbating the confusion and chaos experienced by commuters. Passengers were left without guidance on platform changes or service disruptions, leading to missed trains and delays in their journeys [32742]. |