Premium
Defensibility: Legal Liabilities of Acts and Omissions in the Practice of Systems Engineering
Author(s) -
Walden David D.,
Scott Zane
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
incose international symposium
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2334-5837
DOI - 10.1002/j.2334-5837.2016.00276.x
Subject(s) - context (archaeology) , work (physics) , process (computing) , order (exchange) , action (physics) , quality (philosophy) , requirements engineering , usability , computer science , risk analysis (engineering) , engineering management , engineering , engineering ethics , business , paleontology , philosophy , physics , finance , epistemology , quantum mechanics , software , human–computer interaction , biology , programming language , operating system , mechanical engineering
Systems Engineers assigned to projects spend a majority of their time on technical and technical management processes. In order to produce balanced system solutions, systems engineers rely on specialty engineering activities (informally known as the “ilities” because many of them end in “ilty”) to trade performance requirements with non‐functional requirements (also known as quality attributes). The INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook Fourth Edition (INCOSE, 2015) lists 14 “ilities” including affordability, reliability, and usability. This paper introduces defensibility, an additional “ility” that attempts to balance the legal aspects of the system and its development effort. Professional legal liabilities stem from two primary sources: acts and omissions . Breaches of acts arise when an activity has been done, but it was done poorly or an improper action was taken based on the situation. Breaches of omissions arise when an activity was not done that should have reasonably been done under the circumstances. This paper explores both of these liabilities in the context of systems engineering and provides practical advice on how individuals and companies can better protect themselves. This paper is an attempt to show practitioners how defensibility may play a role in their designs and how they may be drawn into the adjudicatory process around disputes over their work or the work of others.