3 ms·

As harsh as this sounds, it also seems to have other benefits. Often when things go wrong the solution the government comes up with is "micromanage the industry

As harsh as this sounds, it also seems to have other benefits. Often when things go wrong the solution the government comes up with is "micromanage the industry more", and the industry becomes yet more bureaucratic and compliance focused. Innovation is harder because the people making the rules aren't necessarily the domain experts. I think an accountability approach lets engineers build for safety leveraging their expert knowledge, in contrast to a rule based approach which favors compliance and bureaucracy. Accountability will select for leaders with an understanding of good engineering and safety culture, rather than leaders who are good at bureaucracy and compliance. I worked in the financial sector for a bit, where some leaders have personal accountability (eg chief compliance officer). I've seen questionable projects die because the company couldn't find someone to stay in that accountability role. The financial sector is not necessarily a good example of what I'm talking about generally, but in my particular experiences accountability seemed to work. tl;dr: Fewer rules, more personal accountability.

vanviegen 2y ago
What does 'personal accountability' actually mean in your book? How is a person held accountable when their domain implodes due to incompetence or greed?
- Seattle3503 2y ago
  I mean personal criminal liability. Not civil or criminal liability absorbed by the larger corporation (though penalties to the corp might be necessary as well). Patent law uses the concept of "a person having ordinary skill in the art" (PHOSITA) to determine which patents are novel and which are non-novel. The idea is that if an invention is obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of invention, the invention isn't novel or surprising. I think we could use the same concept in risk management. If, at the time a decision is made, a PHOSITA would say a decision is likely to lead to serious harm, then someone in a leadership position should face criminal liability if that decision later does in fact lead to harm. I think a) who should face the criminal liability, b) what we mean by "likely" c) what we mean by serious harm are all topics you could get into at length. But before you fiddle too much with the knobs on a, b, and c we would probably need to determine if criminal liability is the correct solution. I obviously think so.
  - vanviegen 2y ago
    Sounds good. Sign me up! :-)

vanviegen 2y ago

What does 'personal accountability' actually mean in your book? How is a person held accountable when their domain implodes due to incompetence or greed?

Seattle3503 2y ago
I mean personal criminal liability. Not civil or criminal liability absorbed by the larger corporation (though penalties to the corp might be necessary as well). Patent law uses the concept of "a person having ordinary skill in the art" (PHOSITA) to determine which patents are novel and which are non-novel. The idea is that if an invention is obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of invention, the invention isn't novel or surprising. I think we could use the same concept in risk management. If, at the time a decision is made, a PHOSITA would say a decision is likely to lead to serious harm, then someone in a leadership position should face criminal liability if that decision later does in fact lead to harm. I think a) who should face the criminal liability, b) what we mean by "likely" c) what we mean by serious harm are all topics you could get into at length. But before you fiddle too much with the knobs on a, b, and c we would probably need to determine if criminal liability is the correct solution. I obviously think so.
- vanviegen 2y ago
  Sounds good. Sign me up! :-)