[SystemSafety] Muddled thinking punctures plan for British ventilator

[Michael J. Pont]

I don’t think ‘muddled thinking’ is fair.

 

I suspect that the key decision makers did not – at the time - fully understand the significant technical challenges and additional risks that arise when moving from a design that supports mandatory ventilation (in which the machine is in full control; the patient is not breathing) and an ‘assisted’ mode (in which the machine has to synchronise to the breathing demands of the patient some or all of the time).

 

This lack of understanding is not surprising in the circumstances (given the natural desire to move very quickly).

 

>From my perspective, both the people involved in drawing up the specs and those involved in developing the ventilators acted with the best of intentions.

 

Michael.

 

Michael J. Pont, PhD

SafeTTy Systems Ltd

www.SafeTTy.net <http://www.SafeTTy.net> 

 

From: systemsafety [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of Dewi Daniels
Sent: 19 April 2020 18:29
To: The System Safety List <systemsafety at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
Subject: [SystemSafety] Muddled thinking punctures plan for British ventilator

 

I just read the following article in the Financial Times.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=financial+times+muddled+thinking+punctures+plans+for+british+ventilator <https://www.google.com/search?q=financial+times+muddled+thinking+punctures+plans+for+british+ventilator&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB812GB812&oq=financial+times+muddled+thinking+punctures+plans+for+british+ventilator&aqs=chrome..69i57.18042j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8> &rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB812GB812&oq=financial+times+muddled+thinking+punctures+plans+for+british+ventilator

 

I've provided the Google link since the FT article appears to be behind a paywall.

 

For non-UK readers, the background is that in March 2020, the UK government encouraged UK companies to design and manufacture ventilators to help fight COVID-19. A number of companies responded, including Airbus, Dyson, Rolls-Royce and several Formula One teams.

The article seems to me to be very unfair to the engineering companies involved. If they were provided with incorrect or incomplete requirements, it's nor surprising that their designs proved to be unsuitable. While I accept that an alternative approach would have been to sub-contract the manufacturing of existing designs,. I don't think that would have been a trivial task either.


Yours,

Dewi Daniels | Director | Software Safety Limited

Telephone +44 7968 837742 | Email d <mailto:ddaniels at verocel.com> ewi.daniels at software-safety.com <mailto:ewi.daniels at software-safety.com> 

Software Safety Limited is a company registered in England and Wales. Company number: 9390590. Registered office: Fairfield, 30F Bratton Road, West Ashton, Trowbridge, United Kingdom BA14 6AZ

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/pipermail/systemsafety/attachments/20200420/ea87dbef/attachment-0001.html>