The earliest I know of: https://books.google.com/books?id=mskkmVkpIUcC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP97#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=mskkmVkpIUcC&lpg=PP

The earliest I know of: https://books.google.com/books?id=mskkmVkpIUcC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP97#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=mskkmVkpIUcC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP... I've seen the act of analyzing project failures by this name in software engineering/management ever since. Maybe it was a bit more relevant in the days of large waterfall software project management, where failure often meant the end of a project with no product launched. Sometimes after a "death march": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_march_(project_management) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_march_(project_managemen... But it does seem natural to me that it has been carried over to current days, and applied to analyzing failures in the context most relevant to modern software development. Never stopped to think about the weirdness of the term's application. It feels so natural to me, I'd suggest we all start calling the fixed service as "resurrected". As in: "Google Cloud Global Load Balancers were resurrected at 13:19." (-: