• Richard R. ZitoEmail author


This first introductory chapter is intended to be an “orientation” for the reader of this book in two ways. First, this chapter starts out by comparing some of the more traditional heuristic assumptions about system safety engineering with a few assumptions of the mathematical approach. Although the two ways of thinking, sometimes agree, they can also lead to drastically different interpretations of the same facts. At the end of this book, in the Epilogue, some of these assumptions will be revisited with the insight provided by hindsight.

The second “orientation” function of this chapter is pedagogical rather than philosophical, and starts with a review of the basic mathematical tools and ideas used in this book (Probability and Statistics, Calculus, Matrix Algebra, Linear Programming, and Game Theory). Basic system safety ideas about populations, and the failure of hardware, software, and firmware are also introduced. Furthermore, hazard prediction, detection, and correction, and the effect these activities have on product development is discussed. Finally, the division of system safety engineering into four “classical” branches provides an overall framework for the discussion of various system safety problems.


  1. 1.
    Leveson, N. G. (2011). Enginering a safer world: Systems thinking applied to safety (pp. 7–60). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sandom, C. (2011). Lecture/Address of August 10, 2011, Las Vegas, NV, International System Safety Conference 2011, Las Vegas, NV.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anon. (2013). The Oldest Woman is 126 Years old! Accessed 23 Jan 2013.
  4. 4.
    Pearson, C. E. (1983). Handbook of applied mathematics: Selected results and methods (2nd ed., pp. 1226–1230). New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meyer, P. L. (1970). Introductory probability and statistical applications (2nd ed., pp. 220, 234–5, 316–37, 350–1). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peterson, J., & Arellano, R. (2002, March). Modeling software reliability for a widely distributed, safety-critical system. Reliability Review, 22(1), 5–26.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zito, R. R. (2013, August). How complex systems fail-I: Decomposition of the failure histogram. In Proceedings of the International Systems Safety Conference, 2013, Boston, MA (pp. 12–16).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abramowitz, M., & Stegun, I. A. (1965). Handbook of mathematical functions (p. 255). New York: Dover.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Papoulis, A. (1965). Probability, random variables and stochastic processes (pp. 151–152). New York: McGraw-Hill.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shields, P. C. (1968). Elementary linear algebra. New York, N.Y.: Worth Publication.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Trustrum, K. (1971). Linear programming (p. 88). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pickover, C. A. (2009). The math book (pp. 194–5, 300–1, 452–3). New York: Sterling.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pillsbury, J., Sarro, P. J., Doyle, J., & Wiersema, J. (2015). Design for eternity: Architectural models from the ancient Americas (pp. 18, 77–79). New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2015.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    MIL-STD-882D (2000, February 10). Standard Practice for System Safety (pp. 18–20).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    MIL-STD-882E (2002, May 11) Standard Practice for System Safety (pp. 11–12).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jammer, M. (1974). The philosophy of quantum mechanics (pp. 440–441). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Richard R. Zito Research LLCTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations