[SystemSafety] Analyzing far behind the Intended Use

[jean-louis Boulanger]

Ils why its interesting to do a certification.
Certificat identifiés clearly the bonus art the intenses usés ans the
safety related application condition

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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de');>
> [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>
>
>


-- 
Mr Jean-louis Boulanger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20151231/e55c5b76/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/20151231/e55c5b76/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/20151231/e55c5b76/attachment-0003.png>