| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to the Form E miscalculations in divorce financial terms was a critical fault that had gone unnoticed for a significant period within the Ministry of Justice. The incident was discovered by a family law specialist, Nicola Matheson-Durrant, who reported the mistake to the Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) earlier this month [57050].
(b) The article mentions that software glitches are not unusual in major government IT projects, indicating that similar incidents may have occurred in other government organizations as well. However, specific instances of the same software failure happening at multiple organizations are not mentioned in the provided article. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident in Article 57050 was primarily due to a design flaw in the software used to calculate financial terms in divorce cases. The critical fault in the "Form E" software, which miscalculated assets and potentially inflated the financial worth of individuals, was identified as originating from the development phase. The error was present in a specific paragraph (2.20) of the form, where final liabilities were not reflected correctly, leading to distorted net asset figures being produced [57050].
(b) Additionally, the failure could also be attributed to operational factors, as the mistake went unnoticed for a significant period despite the software being used by various legal professionals, including solicitors, barristers, and judges. The fact that the error was not detected during the operation of the system by these individuals suggests a failure in the operational processes or oversight mechanisms in place [57050]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident related to the Form E used in divorce proceedings was due to a critical fault in the software itself. The miscalculation of assets was a result of a specific mathematical error within the software, particularly in paragraph 2.20, which failed to reflect the minus figure of final liabilities entered earlier on, leading to distorted net figures of applicants' assets [57050]. The fault was eventually spotted by a family law specialist who identified the issue within the software, indicating that the failure originated from within the system itself. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in Article 57050 occurred due to non-human_actions. The critical fault in the software used to calculate financial terms for divorces was a result of a miscalculation in the software itself, specifically in a paragraph numbered 2.20, which failed to reflect the minus figure of final liabilities entered earlier on, leading to a simple mathematical error. This non-human error potentially inflated the financial worth of one party in the divorce proceedings [57050]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The software failure incident reported in Article 57050 was due to contributing factors that originated in software. The critical fault was found in the software used to calculate financial terms in divorce cases. The software, specifically the "Form E" on the Ministry of Justice's website, was miscalculating assets since April 2014, leading to inaccurate calculations in the division of assets between divorcing couples [57050]. The error was related to a specific paragraph in the form that failed to reflect the minus figure of final liabilities entered earlier, resulting in a simple mathematical error and potentially inflating the true worth of individuals [57050]. The mistake was eventually spotted by a family law specialist who reported it to the Ministry of Justice, leading to the rectification of the software [57050].
(b) The software failure incident was not attributed to hardware issues but rather to software-related faults and errors. The fault in the software, specifically in the Form E used for financial calculations in divorce cases, was identified as a critical flaw in the software itself, leading to incorrect asset calculations [57050]. The error was related to a specific part of the software that failed to accurately reflect certain financial information entered by users, resulting in distorted net figures of applicants' assets [57050]. The Ministry of Justice acknowledged the software fault and made corrections to rectify the issue, indicating that the problem originated within the software system [57050]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident related to the Form E used in divorce proceedings was non-malicious. The fault in the software was due to a critical error in the calculation of financial terms, specifically in paragraph 2.20, which failed to reflect the minus figure of final liabilities entered earlier on, leading to a simple mathematical error. This error potentially inflated the financial worth of a wife or husband, affecting the division of assets between divorcing couples. The mistake was discovered by a family law specialist, Nicola Matheson-Durrant, and reported to the Ministry of Justice, which eventually rectified the software. The incident was characterized by a lack of awareness rather than intentional harm, as no solicitor, barrister, or judge had noticed the error until it was brought to light [57050]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident related to the Form E used in divorce proceedings was primarily due to poor decisions. The critical fault in the software, which miscalculated assets and financial terms, went unnoticed for a significant period despite being used by numerous legal professionals and individuals. The Ministry of Justice failed to detect the error until it was brought to their attention by a family law specialist, indicating a lack of proper oversight and quality control in the development and maintenance of the software [57050]. Additionally, the response from the HMCTS, such as not acknowledging the specialist who identified the issue and making defensive statements about not changing dates for technical errors, reflects a lack of accountability and transparency in handling the software failure incident. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident in Article 57050 was primarily due to development incompetence. The critical fault in the software used to calculate financial terms for divorces was a result of a miscalculation in the Form E software that went unnoticed for a significant period of time. Despite being used by various legal professionals and individuals, the error was not identified until a family law specialist discovered it. The Ministry of Justice rectified the software only after being prompted multiple times and did not publicly announce the error, indicating a lack of professional competence in identifying and addressing the issue promptly [57050].
(b) Additionally, the accidental aspect of the failure can be seen in the fact that the fault in the software was not intentionally introduced but was a result of a simple mathematical error in one particular paragraph of the form. The error led to distorted net figures of applicants' assets being produced, potentially impacting financial settlements in divorce proceedings. The software glitch was not a deliberate act but rather an unintended consequence of the faulty calculation mechanism within the Form E software [57050]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident related to the Form E used in divorce proceedings was temporary. The fault in the software, which miscalculated assets, was only spotted earlier this month by a family law specialist, Nicola Matheson-Durrant, and reported to the Ministry of Justice [57050]. The Ministry of Justice then rectified the software after being prompted, indicating that the failure was not permanent but rather due to specific circumstances that led to the error being identified and corrected. |
| Behaviour |
omission, value, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in Article 57050 did not involve a crash where the system loses state and does not perform any of its intended functions.
(b) omission: The failure in the software incident was due to the system omitting to perform its intended functions at an instance(s). Specifically, paragraph 2.20 of Form E failed to reflect the minus figure of final liabilities entered earlier on, resulting in a simple mathematical error and not recognizing significant debts or liabilities entered, potentially inflating the true worth of the assets [57050].
(c) timing: The failure was not related to timing, where the system performs its intended functions correctly but too late or too early.
(d) value: The software failure incident was primarily due to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly. The software miscalculated assets, potentially inflating the financial worth of a wife or husband, leading to distorted net figures of applicants' assets being produced [57050].
(e) byzantine: The failure was not characterized by the system behaving erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions.
(f) other: The other behavior observed in this software failure incident was the failure to recognize significant debts or liabilities entered, resulting in a simple mathematical error and potentially inflating the true worth of the assets [57050]. |