[SystemSafety] Fault, Failure and Reliability Again (short)

[Martyn Thomas]

Is this just a terminology issue?  It seems to me that it has a profound
effect on a safety case if you accept that the probability of
catastrophic failure depends mostly on how much someone wants to cause
that failure, rather than on how you developed the system.

For example, does IEC 61508 have anything to say about the insider threat?

Martyn

On 04/03/2015 12:39, Peter Bernard Ladkin wrote:
>
> On 2015-03-04 13:23 , Martyn Thomas wrote:
>> Is there a need to update IEC 61508 to take account of this interaction?
> Yes.
>
>> If so, is there a plan to do so?
> Yes.
>
> An informal working group of the IEC MT will be looking at it and I am leading the WG.
>
> The only current member of the WG is my PhD student Chris Goeker, who is currently working on the
> concept-rationalisation project SmartTerms http://www.iglos.de/doc/?q=node/17 which we are in with
> the IVA at the Technical University of Brunswick (TU-BS) and the PTB (the German equivalent to the
> National Physical Laboratory).
>
> Current funding only allows SmartTerms to look at new areas of electrotechnology, e.g., "Smart
> Grid", "Smart Cities", "Smart House and Building", "Electro-Mobility" (electric road vehicles) and
> potentially Industrie 4.0 (robotics for factory production lines).
>
> My group with TU-BS IVA and DKE have a joint project proposal in to the German Federal Ministry for
> Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi) to attend to this task for Functional Safety and Security, using
> the SmartTerms technology, and I imagine the work on behalf of the German delegation to the IEC MT
> would largely be done here. The funding isn't by any means assured.
>
> PBL
>
> Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Faculty of Technology, University of Bielefeld, 33594 Bielefeld, Germany
> Je suis Charlie
> Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319  www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
>