3 ms·

At this point, wouldn't a penetration tester stance by the state be more effective? Basically the institutions try to subvert the production process by sabotagi

At this point, wouldn't a penetration tester stance by the state be more effective? Basically the institutions try to subvert the production process by sabotaging via infiltration, and then look for the corresponding paper-trail, fixed product, caught pentest. It would keep everybody on there toes, every process functional and the regulators working without getting caught.

CaptainOfCoit 3y ago
Depends on what the goal is. If the goal is safety, that might make sense. But according to what Boeing been doing for the last decade or so, the goal is no longer safety but higher production numbers, then doing something like that would work against getting there.
542458 3y ago
It’s an interesting idea, but I don’t think it quite solves the problem here, at least as I understand the problem. The system isn’t designed to protect against actively hostile/sabotaging elements inside the factory, nor was that the problem (i.e., if you have factory floor access, you could go and sabotage the plane by drilling holes in a part after it’s been installed and inspected, but that’s not the issue at hand). The issue here is skipping or skirting existing process in the name of efficiency. People aren’t trying to destroy planes, they’re just not doing their job “correctly”. Some sort of process inspector is typically what you’d use here.
- peteradio 3y ago
  If you've worked on building any simple little object you know King Murphy sabotages all steps. The problem with Mr. Murphy is that he doesn't tell you when he's going to strike. Having a Murphy Larper would at least give you an insight to the processes that are supposed to thwart Herr Murphy. I'm not sure what a Process Inspector does. Do they work nights and weekends? Are they protected from reporting failures in process? Who holds responsibility for every process failure?

CaptainOfCoit 3y ago

Depends on what the goal is. If the goal is safety, that might make sense. But according to what Boeing been doing for the last decade or so, the goal is no longer safety but higher production numbers, then doing something like that would work against getting there.

542458 3y ago

It’s an interesting idea, but I don’t think it quite solves the problem here, at least as I understand the problem. The system isn’t designed to protect against actively hostile/sabotaging elements inside the factory, nor was that the problem (i.e., if you have factory floor access, you could go and sabotage the plane by drilling holes in a part after it’s been installed and inspected, but that’s not the issue at hand). The issue here is skipping or skirting existing process in the name of efficiency. People aren’t trying to destroy planes, they’re just not doing their job “correctly”. Some sort of process inspector is typically what you’d use here.

peteradio 3y ago
If you've worked on building any simple little object you know King Murphy sabotages all steps. The problem with Mr. Murphy is that he doesn't tell you when he's going to strike. Having a Murphy Larper would at least give you an insight to the processes that are supposed to thwart Herr Murphy. I'm not sure what a Process Inspector does. Do they work nights and weekends? Are they protected from reporting failures in process? Who holds responsibility for every process failure?