The term “failing” is not only about a sluggish performance. Nor is it only about an implementation defect that prevents a system from providing services to subscribed consumers. Simply put, a system that does not meet business or technical requirements is a failing one. From an enterprise perspective, a product that does not offer solutions to potential problems is doomed to fizzle.
There are good enough reasons for management to define a system as an ineffective or failing entity. But how should this be determined? Cutting the losses is not a bad thing to do if executives believe that a product is defective and unable to deliver services. Such a valuation, however, should not only be based upon the symptoms of failure. The assessment should encompass a number of perspectives, some of which may offer indications as to why an implementation flopped. These multiview findings would provide a strong justification for halting operations and support of a product in production.
The art of system failure analysis is indeed intricate and consuming. As discussed, a wide range of reasons may contribute to a disappointing system performance or improper functionality. A full product life cycle then would provide multiple perspectives to help understanding the contributing factors of system mishap. By correcting the faults in a product life cycle process, future system failures could be avoided.
Now, consider some life ...