| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident having happened again at one_organization:
The article mentions a previous British-designed unmanned aircraft, the Phoenix, which had its own set of issues, including being forced to land on its back due to technical equipment problems. The Phoenix was known among troops as the "Bugger Off" owing to its frequent failure to return from missions. This incident with the Phoenix could be considered a software failure incident within the same organization [52353].
(b) The software failure incident having happened again at multiple_organization:
The article compares the delays and issues faced by the Watchkeeper project with the US army project to acquire the Gray Eagle drone from General Atomics. The article highlights that the US army project opted for a proven off-the-shelf solution from the United States, while the UK project faced significant delays and cost overruns with the Watchkeeper project. This comparison suggests that similar incidents of software failure or project delays have occurred at different organizations [52353]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design |
(a) The software failure incident related to the development phase:
The delay in the development of the Watchkeeper surveillance drones was primarily attributed to software glitches and army staff shortages. The project, which was expected to be fully operational by 2013, faced significant delays, pushing the operational date to 2017 at the earliest [52353].
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) acknowledged that achieving full operational capability by 2017 would require considerable further development, indicating challenges in the software development phase [52353].
(b) The software failure incident related to the operational phase:
The article does not provide specific information about software failure incidents related to the operational phase. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system, outside_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident related to the Watchkeeper surveillance drones was primarily due to within-system factors such as software glitches and army staff shortages. The delays in the project, cost overruns, and the need for further development were all internal issues within the system [52353].
(b) outside_system: On the other hand, external factors such as changes in aircraft safety regulations and certification in the UK also contributed to the delays in the project. These external factors added to the complexities and challenges faced by the development of the Watchkeeper drones [52353]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the case of the Watchkeeper surveillance drones was primarily due to non-human actions such as software glitches and delays in development. The delays were attributed to factors like software glitches and army staff shortages, which led to the project being significantly behind schedule and over budget [52353].
(b) On the other hand, human actions also played a role in the failure of the Watchkeeper project. The decision-making process, procurement choices, and management of the project by individuals within the Ministry of Defence and the consortium led by Thales contributed to the delays and cost overruns. For example, the decision to commission a bespoke technology solution instead of purchasing proven off-the-shelf solutions like the US army did with the Gray Eagle drone was highlighted as a lesson learned from the Watchkeeper project [52353]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident related to hardware can be seen in the delays and issues faced by the Watchkeeper surveillance drones. The article mentions that the project faced delays due to software glitches and army staff shortages, which are contributing factors originating in hardware [52353].
(b) The software failure incident related to software can be observed in the challenges faced by the Watchkeeper drones. The delays in becoming fully operational, software glitches, and the need for further development all point to issues originating in the software aspect of the project [52353]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident related to the Watchkeeper surveillance drones does not appear to be malicious. The delays and issues with the software were primarily due to software glitches, army staff shortages, lack of trained pilots, and regulatory challenges, rather than any intentional harm to the system [52353].
(b) The software failure incident can be categorized as non-malicious, as the delays and problems were a result of various contributing factors such as technical challenges, certification requirements, and project management issues, rather than any deliberate attempt to cause harm to the system [52353]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions, accidental_decisions |
(a) The intent of the software failure incident related to poor decisions can be inferred from the article. The project to develop the Watchkeeper surveillance drones faced significant delays and cost overruns due to poor decisions made during the procurement process. The initial decision to award the contract to a consortium led by the French defense firm Thales, the delays in development, and the failure to meet operational deadlines all point to poor decisions contributing to the software failure incident [52353].
(b) The software failure incident can also be attributed to accidental decisions or unintended consequences. For example, the delays in the project were partly due to software glitches and army staff shortages, which could be considered accidental decisions or unintended consequences that contributed to the failure of the software development process [52353]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, unknown |
(a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is evident in the case of the British army's Watchkeeper surveillance drones. The project faced significant delays and cost overruns due to software glitches and army staff shortages. The initial plan to have the drones fully operational by 2013 was pushed back to at least 2017, with only three out of 54 drones seeing active duty after 10 years of development [52353].
(b) The software failure incident related to accidental factors is not explicitly mentioned in the provided article. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident related to the Watchkeeper surveillance drones can be categorized as a temporary failure. The delays in the software development and operational readiness of the drones were primarily attributed to software glitches and army staff shortages [52353]. These contributing factors introduced certain circumstances that led to the temporary failure of the software to meet the expected timelines and operational capabilities. |
| Behaviour |
crash, omission, timing, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident related to the Watchkeeper surveillance drones can be attributed to a crash. The drones experienced software glitches, which contributed to the delays in their deployment and operational readiness. The article mentions that the first Watchkeeper drones were expected to be fully operational by 2013, but due to software glitches and other issues, the date was pushed back to 2017 at the earliest [52353].
(b) omission: The software failure incident can also be linked to omission. Despite the initial plans and expectations for the Watchkeeper drones to be operational by a certain timeline, the software glitches and other challenges led to the omission of the system to perform its intended functions as scheduled. This omission resulted in delays and operational setbacks for the project [52353].
(c) timing: The timing of the software failure incident is another aspect to consider. The delays in the development and deployment of the Watchkeeper drones can be attributed to timing issues. The software glitches and other challenges caused the system to perform its intended functions too late, missing the original deadlines set for its operational readiness [52353].
(d) value: The software failure incident also involves a failure in value. Despite the significant investment and resources allocated to the Watchkeeper project, the delays, software glitches, and operational challenges have led to the system not delivering the expected value. The project's cost has escalated beyond the initial estimates, and the system has not been utilized as originally intended, impacting its overall value proposition [52353].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not exhibit characteristics of a byzantine failure. The issues primarily revolve around software glitches, delays, and operational challenges rather than inconsistent responses or interactions within the system [52353].
(f) other: The software failure incident can be categorized under the "other" behavior as well. The challenges faced by the Watchkeeper project, including software glitches, delays, and operational setbacks, represent a combination of various failure modes and issues that do not fit neatly into the predefined categories of crash, omission, timing, or value. The complexity and interplay of these factors contribute to a unique set of challenges for the project [52353]. |