Typical shortcomings in the dependability-related publications

Aim. To identify and analyse the shortcomings that are typical for publications on dependability in order to warn the authors of future publications against them. Methods. When writing the paper, the author critically analysed a large number of publications and compared them with the key provisions of the basic Russian and international dependability-related standards. The analysis covered Russian standards that are not part of the Dependability in Technics system, as well as course books. This choice is due to the fact that the nature of such publications leads to the replication of errors. In addition, correct and unambiguous presentation of information is especially important for them. Results. The following typical shortcomings found in many publications were identified and analysed. 1. Confusion in the basic concepts of dependability causing incorrect use of some basic terms. The most common errors of this kind are as follows: the use of the term “dependability” instead of the term “reliability” and the term “accessibility” instead of the term “availability”, which is due to the incorrect (in this context) translation of the English terms “reliability” and “availability”, respectively; the use of the term “failure” as a state of an item. 2. Errors associated with dependability measures, i.e., incorrect choice of the set of indicators and the use of incorrect names for indicators. 3. Unnecessary use of simple formulas that are valid only for the exponential distribution of time to failure, in the general case. 4. Undefined criterion of failure when setting quantitative dependability requirements. Conclusion. The paper’s findings will help the authors of future publications on dependability to improve their quality by avoiding the above shortcomings. The following measures are proposed for improving the situation. To ensure thorough and independent review of the forthcoming course books, a broad and impartial discussion by the professional community of draft standards and already published materials with the publication of the results of such discussions. The Technical Committee for Standardization 119 Dependability in Engineering should put into order the corresponding system of standards that is to become a coherent and consistent basis for other publications and documents, as well as undertake the expert assessment of all dependability-related technical standards.

1. Yershov G.A., Semerikov V.N., Semerikov N.V. [What to believe? On the system of standards “Dependability in engineering”]. Standarty i kachestvo 2018;8:14-19. (in Russ.)

2. Netes V.А. [How to regain trust? About the system of standards “Dependability in engineering”]. Standarty i kachestvo 2019;2:19-24. (in Russ.)

3. Netes V.A., Shper V.L. [On the new Russian terminological standards for dependability. Part 1]. Standarty i kachestvo 2024;1:22-27. DOI: 10.35400/0038-9692-20241-269-23. (in Russ.)

4. Netes V.A., Shper V.L. [On the new Russian terminological standards for dependability. Part 2]. Standarty i kachestvo 2024;1:22-27. DOI: 10.35400/0038-9692-20243-270-23. (in Russ.)

5. Netes V.A. [Availability and accessibility: feel the difference]. Vestnik sviazi 2005;8:22-26. (in Russ.)

6. Netes V.A. [On the dependability and quality indicators in telecommunications]. Electrosvyaz 2022;11:41-45. DOI: 10.34832/ELSV2022.36.11.006. (in Russ.)

7. Dzirkal E.V. [Specification and Verification of Dependability Requirements of Complex Products]. Moscow: Radio i sviaz; 1981. (in Russ.)

8. Netes V.A. [Efficiency retention factor as a dependability indicator of complex systems]. Dependability 2012;4:14-23. (in Russ.)

9. Netes V.A. Effectiveness retention ratio and its standardization. Dependability 2021;21(2):3-8. DOI: 10.21683/1729-2646-2021-21-2-3-8.

10. Netes V. Effectiveness retention ratio and multi-state systems. Reliability: Theory and Applications 2021;16(4): 94–104. DOI: 10.24412/1932-2321-2021-465-94-104.

11. Ushakov I.A., editor. [Dependability of Technical Systems: a Guidebook]. Moscow: Radio i sviaz; 1985. (in Russ.)

12. Netes V.A. [Criterion of failure and methods of its definition]. Methods of Quality Management 2017;2:50-55. (in Russ.)

13. Netes V. Failure criteria and time over thresholds in them. Reliability: Theory and Applications 2022;17(4): 35–42. DOI: 10.24412/1932-2321-2022-471-35-42.

14. Netes V.A. Regulatory requirements for the dependability of telecommunication networks. Vestnik sviazi 2022;5:6-9. (in Russ.)