3 ms·
I hope not. Failures are on a spectrum and this was unfortunate but probably not malicious. All things considered this should be a lesson learned. There should
by blorenz 3y ago
I hope not. Failures are on a spectrum and this was unfortunate but probably not malicious. All things considered this should be a lesson learned. There should be more failsafe mechanisms in place so juniors can fail safely and learn from them. The absolute worst thing we can do is shame an individual so they don’t attempt to try new things in fear of ridicule.
- wolverine876 3y ago> There should be more failsafe mechanisms in place so juniors can fail safely and learn from them. And if not, whoever put the junior in that role is the person responsible for the problem.
- doubloon 3y agowell theoretically you could argue the structure of this task should have 'dual control' / multiple people should be involved in the process checking each others work. preferably even split it up people who do not know or interact with each other on a regular basis. yes it would be slower but its important to get it correct. might as well throw in some automated poke-yoke or whatever too. in that case there is no fault in any of the juniors or operators, the fault is in management for failing to implement infrastructure to force a critical process to have more than one control