What the Death Star Can Tell Us About System Safety

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9174)

Abstract

Resilience engineering requires that organizations review their own systems to proactively identify weaknesses. Imagine, then, having to identify a critical flaw in a highly complex planetoid sized orbital battle station, under extreme time pressure, and with no clear idea at the outset where the vulnerability will lie? This was the challenge faced by the Rebel Alliance in the film Star Wars. One of the belligerents, the Imperial Empire, considered it highly unlikely a weakness would be found even if the other belligerent were in possession of a full technical readout of the Station. How could it be done? The first option presented in this paper is to employ traditional error identification methods. The findings show the limitations of this component-based approach because it did not predict the actual vulnerability exploited. The second option is to use a systems-based method to model the Death Star’s functional constraints and affordances. This method did detect the film ending, and several others. It also provides a compelling narrative around the use of reductionist methods for systems problems, and some wider implications for method selection in more earth-bound settings.

Keywords

Resilience Scale Variety Predictive efficiency 

References

  1. 1.
    Berman, M.: All That Is Solid Melts Into Air: The Experience of Modernity. Penguin, London (1982)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stringer, J. (ed.): Movie Blockbusters. Routledge, London (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haines, R.W.: The Moviegoing Experience, 1968-2001. McFarland, Jefferson, NC (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Windham, R., Reiff, C., Trevas, C.: Imperial Death Star DS-1 Orbital Battle Station: Owner’s Workshop Manual. Haynes, Sparkford, UK (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rinzler, J.W.: The Making of Star Wars. Ebury, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Campbell, J.: The Hero with a Thousand Faces, 3rd edn. New World, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weber, M.: The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (1930). e-book available at: http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/world/ethic/pro_eth_frame.html
  8. 8.
    Ritzer, G.: The McDonaldization of society. Pine Forge Press, London (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Naikar, N.: Work domain analysis: concepts, guidelines, and cases. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bar-Yam, Y.: Making things work: solving complex problems in a complex world. NESCI: Knowledge Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sitter, L.U., Hertog, J.F., Dankbaar, B.: From complex organizations with simple jobs to simple organizations with complex jobs. Hum. Relat. 50(5), 497–536 (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ashby, W.R.: Introduction to Cybernetics. Chapman & Hall, London (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heylighen, F., Joslyn, C.: Cybernetics and Second Order Cybernetics. In: Meyers, R.A. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology (3rd edn.), vol. 4, pp. 155–170. Academic Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chalmers, D. J.: Thoughts on emergence (1990). Available at: http://consc.net/notes/emergence.html
  15. 15.
    Trist, E., Bamforth, K.: Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal getting. Hum. Relat. 4, 3–38 (1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Crutchfield, J.P.: The calculi of emergence: computation, dynamics and induction. Phys D 75, 11–54 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hornby, G.S.: Modularity, reuse, and hierarchy: measuring complexity by measuring structure and organization. Complexity 13(2), 50–61 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Halley, J.D., Winkler, D.A.: Classification of emergence and its relation to self-organization. Complexity 13(5), 10–15 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kletz, T.: An Engineer’s View of Human Error, 2nd edn. Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby, Warwickshire (1991)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cornelissen, M., McClure, R., Salmon, P.M., Stanton, N.A.: Validating the strategies analysis diagram: assessing the reliability and validity of a formative method. Applied Ergonomics 45(6), 1484–1494 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Heriot-Watt UniversityEdinburghUK
  2. 2.University of the Sunshine Coast Accident Research CentreQueenslandUK
  3. 3.University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations