What Are the Best Practices for Designing Resilient and Adaptive Systems?

In summary, the conversation discusses the challenges of designing and producing resilient and adaptive systems while also addressing product liability concerns. The participants offer suggestions such as hiring radical thinkers and using predictive software, as well as emphasizing the importance of thorough documentation and setting limitations for customer use. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexity and potential risks involved in the design and production process.
  • #1
misgfool
I work in an company making moderately complicated instruments or systems. For most cases they work within normal parameters. However, it seems that there are some situations that have not been anticipated. The design in our company sets barriers in front of hazards that may cause accidents. This includes using design standards, best practices, extensive documentation and testing etc. Apparantly it is still nearly impossible to conceive every possible scenario considering the financial constraints. So is there a better paradigm for design and production for systems to be as resilient and adaptive as possible to different conditions?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
That seems a bit vague; I'm not sure exactly what you want to achieve. If I understand you correctly, all that I can think of would be to hire some radical thinkers or use 'fuzzy logic' predictive software to envision more possibilities than the normal crew comes up with.
 
  • #3
Danger, what is being asked about is product liability.

I must say that those two words invoke a lot of fear in many industries. I remember sitting through a training seminar given by our head lawyer and a consultant. It painted a pretty poor picture from a designer's standpoint. The things I pulled from it were:

- It is the designer's job to do whatever it takes to think of every possible use your product could be used for, right or wrong.
- Don't e-mail questionable or harmful data, even within your company.
- No matter what, some moron will be out there that will get hurt using your product because you can't design for everything.

I wish I could say that there is a process. Other than your company having it's own internal methods and following as many established codes. I think you need to present anything you can think of and then let your management make the decision as to whether or not to protect themselves by designing into the product a means to prevent each scenario.
 
  • #4
Thanks for the clarification, Fred, and apologies to Misgfool for failing to understand.
This can indeed become ridiculous after a while. It's sort of like someone who originally just disapproves of trophy hunting escalating to becoming a vegan. If every effort is taken to ensure that there's no possibility of something being misused, nothing could ever work at all. We'd have to start making steak knives out of cotton. No, wait... that could be used to choke someone... :rolleyes:
 
  • #5
FredGarvin said:
- Don't e-mail questionable or harmful data, even within your company.

What is questionable or harmful data?

FredGarvin said:
- No matter what, some moron will be out there that will get hurt using your product because you can't design for everything.

That's why I have to try to develop better ways of doing things. Human users are not always morons, but when they learn to use the instruments they start making tweaks in their environment. At the same time we are updating for example the software. Now we don't know of the tweaks the customer is making and customer may not fully understand how our updates are affecting operation of the instruments. So eventually disaster strikes.

FredGarvin said:
I wish I could say that there is a process. Other than your company having it's own internal methods and following as many established codes. I think you need to present anything you can think of and then let your management make the decision as to whether or not to protect themselves by designing into the product a means to prevent each scenario.

Don't the internal methods form the process? Trying to improve it takes some of the burden from the poor designer. I would like to hear/read about internal methods and way of thinking in your or any other company.
 
  • #6
Danger said:
Thanks for the clarification, Fred, and apologies to Misgfool for failing to understand.

No problem. But could I ask, that you would not use a capital letter in the beginning of misgfool. It's not my (birth)name.

Danger said:
This can indeed become ridiculous after a while. It's sort of like someone who originally just disapproves of trophy hunting escalating to becoming a vegan. If every effort is taken to ensure that there's no possibility of something being misused, nothing could ever work at all. We'd have to start making steak knives out of cotton. No, wait... that could be used to choke someone... :rolleyes:

This must be the fuzzy logic part?
 
  • #7
misgfool said:
No problem. But could I ask, that you would not use a capital letter in the beginning of misgfool. It's not my (birth)name.
For sure. Sorry. I just automatically capitalize usernames because they're proper nouns. I'll refrain from doing so with yours in the future.

misgfool said:
This must be the fuzzy logic part?

:rofl:
Absolutely. Lint everywhere. :biggrin:
 
  • #8
misgfool said:
What is questionable or harmful data?
By that I mean any kind of test data, opinions, etc...that can be pulled out in a trial to show what your company may or may not have known about the liability and why you made certain decisions.

misgfool said:
That's why I have to try to develop better ways of doing things. Human users are not always morons, but when they learn to use the instruments they start making tweaks in their environment. At the same time we are updating for example the software. Now we don't know of the tweaks the customer is making and customer may not fully understand how our updates are affecting operation of the instruments. So eventually disaster strikes.
That is where you need the best documentation stating the limitations that your company expects the customers to in terms of their tweaking. If they go beyond those limits you may have covered your butts...but maybe not.

misgfool said:
Don't the internal methods form the process? Trying to improve it takes some of the burden from the poor designer. I would like to hear/read about internal methods and way of thinking in your or any other company.
In my line of work, our company doesn't really have to worry about what you are asking for. We have different headaches in proving that our engines won't break down, etc...However, if we were designing lawnmowers, you bet we would have to do everything imaginable to prevent someone from hurting themselves. Those kinds of things are the responsibilities of the designers.
 

What is proactive systems engineering?

Proactive systems engineering is an approach to designing and developing complex systems that involves anticipating and addressing potential problems and challenges before they arise. It involves a systematic and holistic approach to engineering that focuses on preventing problems rather than just reacting to them.

Why is proactive systems engineering important?

Proactive systems engineering is important because it helps to ensure the success of a project by identifying and addressing potential issues early on. This can save time, resources, and money in the long run by avoiding costly delays and rework. It also helps to improve the overall quality and reliability of the system being developed.

What are the key elements of proactive systems engineering?

The key elements of proactive systems engineering include risk management, requirements management, configuration management, and verification and validation. These elements work together to identify and address potential problems throughout the entire development process, from concept to deployment.

How is proactive systems engineering different from traditional systems engineering?

Traditional systems engineering typically focuses on addressing problems as they arise, rather than anticipating and preventing them. In contrast, proactive systems engineering takes a more comprehensive and preemptive approach to problem-solving. It also places a greater emphasis on collaboration and communication among team members to ensure potential issues are identified and addressed in a timely manner.

What are the benefits of using proactive systems engineering?

The benefits of using proactive systems engineering include improved project success rates, reduced costs and risks, increased efficiency and productivity, and higher quality and reliability of the final product. It also promotes a more proactive and collaborative approach to problem-solving, leading to a more streamlined and efficient development process.

Similar threads

  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
40
Views
9K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
3K
Back
Top