What is failure?

The terms fault and failure are sometimes used loosely to mean the same thing but they are actually quite different. A fault is something inherent in the software – a failure is something that happens in the real world. Faults do not necessarily lead to failures and failures often occur in software that is not ‘faulty’.

The reason for this is that whether some behaviour is a failure or not, depends on the judgement of the observer and their expectations of the software. For example, I recently tried to buy 2 day passes on the Lisbon metro for myself and my wife. They use reusable cards so you buy 2 cards then credit them with the appropriate pass. The dialogue with the machine went as follows:

How many cards (0.5€ each): 2
How many passes (3.7€ each): 2
Total to pay: 15.8€

To put it mildly, I was surprised. I tried twice, the same thing happened. I then bought the passes one at a time and all was fine – I paid the correct fee of 8.4€.

From my perspective, this was a software failure. It meant that I had to spend longer than I should have buying these passes. On the train, I tried to think about what might have happened. What I guess is the situation is that it is possible to have buy more than 1 day pass at a time and have it credited to the card. So, the 2nd question should have been:

How many passes on each card?

From a testing perspective, the software was probably fine and free of defects and, if you understood the system, then you would have entered 1 pass per card.

So, failures are not some absolute thing that can be tested for. They will always happen because different people will have different expectations of systems. That’s the theme of my keynote talk at SEPGEurope 2010 conference in Porto. We need to design software to help people understand what its doing and help them recover from failures.


1 Comment

Filed under dependability, LSCITS

One response to “What is failure?

  1. Bogdan Golab

    It’s all about requirements. I work for the large company (60000+ employees) and we (box developers) are separated from the real marketing/business requirements. The system architect prepares system requirements. Many times, at the box level, we do not care about real usability of the system for many reasons. Imagine large projects where we have over 40 boxes, 15+ years legacy support, where people simply implement interfaces – we do not have big picture.
    The system requirements are as good as the guy who creates them (+ reviewers). If he miss the use case nobody notices it. Many times the sponsor (Metro owner) as in your case will never use the system (Metro Client). The architect does not add any extra requirement to save cost of development. Besides he can add this later as an extra feature. It is also about money.
    Developing very large system in big Companies can be very surprising…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s