CSC 410 Day 23

The London Ambulance

&
Chemco Cases

1
1. The London Ambulance Case
(a tragically real case).

The London Ambulance Service’s Computer-

Aided Dispatch Project (LASCAD).
Goals:
◦ “replace…handwritten forms and human
dispatchers” with “faster and more reliable
computer technology to receive emergency calls,
gather vital information, identify the location of
the emergency, identify the nearest appropriate
ambulance resources, and dispatch an ambulance
to the emergency site” (p. 129)

2
Design flaws 1.
No input from drivers and other users
◦ What problems can this cause?
Inflexible specifications
◦ Why is flexibility important?
Use of lowest bidder not best bidder
◦ How can low bidders end up being more
expensive?
Lack of references or proven track record in
producing a system of this kind
◦ Not listening to cautions of more experienced
providers. Is this like healthcare.gov?
3
Design Flaws 2.
Over-ambitious time-table.

A “brittle” system, requiring near perfect

vehicle location information.

Not fully, realistically, or incrementally tested

before release.

Lack of consistent training of users.

4
The fallout.
Many vehicles sent to the same place.
Closest vehicles not deployed.
If calls did not use the system “properly,” they
were wait-listed.
Some critical messages were unreadable.
Untrained staff misused the system.
Communications slowed down.
Some patients waited too long for an ambulance
and died.

5
Ethical Evaluation
What vocational failures occurred in this case?

How would LASCAD be assessed by:

◦ Utilitarianism?
 What were the consequences?
◦ Deontological Ethics?
 What duties were ignored?
◦ Virtue Ethics?
 What virtues would have helped?

6
Unintentional Power.
How does LASCAD illustrate the problem of
unintentional power?

What are some of the “what if” questions that

software designers should ask?

What has to be considered beyond technical

functionality?

7
Lessons to Learn
LASCAD wasn’t a “mistake.” It was a disaster.

What could have been done better in:

◦ A) Design?

◦ B) Testing?

◦ C) Implementation?

8
 The Chemco Case.
(a fictional case).
Goals:
◦ Use a sophisticated computer controlled chemical
engineering system to produce chemical
compounds located in a densely inhabited area.
◦ Increase throughput and reduce number of human
workers (gain in productivity).
◦ Use the same “front end” manufacturing process
but replace human oversight and control with an
automated system.
◦ Retain human operators for waste disposal.

9
 Design Pros and Cons
PROS  CONS
Use of simulation Ignored residents’
software to test concerns

Initially performed Lack of robust

well validation

Minor errors were Inabilityfor operators

corrected to counteract mistakes

10
The fallout.
Operator error caused the wrong chemical to be
used.

This led to a rupture, an explosion, death and

injury of fire fighters, and groundwater
contamination.

The system had not been designed to allow

operators to activate timely measures to limit
further damage.

11
Ethical Evaluation
What vocational failures occurred in this case?

How would the Chemco system be assessed by:

◦ Utilitarianism?
 What were the consequences?
◦ Deontological Ethics?
 What duties were ignored?
◦ Virtue Ethics?
 What virtues would have helped?

12
Unintentional Power.
How does the Chemco system illustrate the
problem of unintentional power?

What are some of the “what if” questions that

software designers should ask?

What has to be considered beyond technical

functionality?

13
Lessons to Learn
A real case like Chemco would be a disaster.

What could be done better in:

◦ A) Design?

◦ B) Testing?

◦ C) Implementation?

14