So, who Dunnit?
© 2002 Bashar Nuseibeh, The Open University, UK 14
Abbreviated description:
What the programmers said: the problem was clearly due to a programming error (unhandled
exception) that may possibly have been avoided by having better programming practice.
What the designers said: the problem was clearly a design error (treating software
failure/redundancy the same as hardware failure/redundancy) that may possibly have been mitigated
with a better design.
What the testers said: the problem was clearly due to inadequate hard that may possibly have
been addressed by choosing cases that tested the system under realistic launch conditions.
What the managers said: the problem was a management one that may possibly have been
addressed through better machinate reviews and schedules.
What the requirements engineers said – and I count myself as one – the problem was clearly
due to the reuse of the same software when the requirements of Ariane 5 had changed from
those of Ariane 4.
In reality, of course, the Ariane 5 disaster was a systemic failure, with the lack of reevaluation
of risk playing a significant part in the failure.
Reference: B. Nuseibeh, “Ariane 5: Who Dunnit?”, IEEE Software, 14(3): 15-16, May 1997,

Best answer:

Answer by Debbie’s angel
Easily, have people with morals operating and originating the machinate

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!