Toyota and the Infinite Richness of B.C. Smith

Some reflections on B.C. Smith’s “Limits of Correctness” 1985
Part I

The world is infinitely rich. Smith wrote his article in the cold-war days of the mid 80’s.  He pointed out the different natures of formal correctness (that computers can handle best) and informal responsibility (best achieved by humans’ social and moral systems) and how they both contribute to handling the ‘infinite richness of the world’, with particular reference to  handling nuclear weapon systems technically.  This makes a nuclear strike due to technical failure a risk of low frequency but high impact (LFHI Risk).

Engineering is infinitely rich. Much less so than the world, but failure in industrial production can be relatively high impacting, take for example Toyota’s recently announced problems with the accelerator pedal, or the Y2010 bug of certain credit cards produced by the company Gemalto.  Even with quality standards like SPICE, CMMI, EFQM and many more, why does production still seem to fail in rare cases?

Human and formal systems never fail alone. Employing Smith’s thinking, quality standards cannot exclusively be blamed here, since human factors, like common sense or social systems, obviously failed as well.  If a failure has occurred then both factors have contributed to it.
Now, I don’t have an answer on  how to ultimately handle LFHI Risk, or even what Toyota or Gemalto should do next, but I’ve a feeling that enforcing further quality standards is not the solution.

So far, just a few thoughts.

About modelpractice

Modeling Theory and Abstraction Awareness in strive for scientific rigour and relevance to information systems engineering.
This entry was posted in Software_Engineering and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Toyota and the Infinite Richness of B.C. Smith

  1. Related link:

    “We have institutionalized best-in-class performance throughout our company to achieve the highest levels of quality and security.”

  2. JJ says:

    It’s so sad that Toyota failed. They really have high Q standards, they are the benchmark for the whole industry. Perhaps they relied too much on them. It’s so true what B.C.Smith says about human responsibility, and it applies to all kinds of situations. I recently heard about the approach of attacker units. Their only job is to constantly try to break the system.

  3. resorm74 says:

    hello! 😉 im at work at Toyota currently, therefore i don’t have much time to write… however! I really liked reading this post. It was some great stuff. many thanks! Best regards

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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