[SystemSafety] Analyzing far behind the Intended Use

[jean-louis Boulanger]

Ils why its interesting to do a certification.
Certificat identified clearly the boundaries, the set of service, the
intended use and the safety related application condition
and you need to demonstrate that the certificate is correctly used in the
new project

Le mercredi 30 décembre 2015, Rolf Spiker <rolf.spiker at exida.com> a écrit :

> Hi Kuper,
>
>
>
> The real question is: Who is responsible if something is going wrong?
>
> Is this described clearly in the contract?
>
> What are the responsible boundaries of "Intended Use"
>
> If not clearly described you have a problem I think!
>
>
>
> *Functional* Safety, Security & Reliability > www.exida.com
>
> To view our Equipment database with certified elements go to:
> www.sael-online.com
>
> [image: cid:image004.png at 01CE7D73.3574A130]
> The information in this e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the
> person to whom it is addressed. If this message is not addressed to you,
> please be aware that you have no authorization to read the rest of this
> e-mail, to copy it or to furnish it to any person other than the addressee.
> Should you have received this e-mail by mistake, please bring this to the
> attention of the sender, after which you are kindly requested to destroy
> the original message. Exida.com cannot be held responsible or liable in any
> way whatsoever for and/or in connection with any consequences and/or damage
> resulting from the proper and complete dispatch and receipt of the content
> of this e-mail
>
>
>
> *From:* systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de [mailto:
> systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] *On Behalf Of * Haim
> Kuper
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 30, 2015 3:13 AM
> *To:* systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
> *Subject:* [SystemSafety] Analyzing far behind the Intended Use
>
>
>
> Hello everyone,
>
>
>
> What is your opinion regarding the following situation:
>
> The customer defines System-A to be used as "Advisory only". This fact
> defines what we call the "Intended Use" of the system.
>
> This  Intendent use is the basis of System-A safety analysis, resulting
> with few hazards marked with CRITICAL severity.
>
> The operator of System-X is quite clever to use the system FAR BEHIND the
> Intendent use.
>
> If you analyze this  "Extra-usage", you find hazards typed as CATASTROPHIC
> severity, and the mitigation of those hazards is quite expensive.
>
> We do wish to protect the operator activities. However, the customer will
> not pay the price of  FAR BEHIND the Intendent use mitigation.
>
>
>
> How will you act under those constrains ?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kuper
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20160101/791b8861/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 18354 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20160101/791b8861/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 25999 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20160101/791b8861/attachment-0003.png>