3 ms·
Unless you've got a series of physical safety measures (think GoldenEye style dual keys), your processes are just a series of rules. Enforcement of these rules
by benjamincburns 12y ago
Unless you've got a series of physical safety measures (think GoldenEye style dual keys), your processes are just a series of rules. Enforcement of these rules is probably quite redundant, but I promise you that with sufficient motivation someone high enough in your company could knowingly insert (or cover up) flaws which could kill somebody.
Such motivation might come from the fear of losing your job.
- bilbo0s 12y agoWell... yes... we had "dual key" type things going on as well. (That was part of what I meant by "it got a WHOLE lot more restrictive".) But, really, isn't an "engineer", someone pretty LOW in the hierarchy ? I mean, that's kind of the point, the better the structure and processes... the higher up you will need to go to subvert them. In the case of GM... the processes were so poor that you didn't need to go beyond the engineer level to subvert them. (Assuming the information in the article is to be believed.)
- cmdrfred 12y agoI imagine that it may have been somewhat simple for GM to implement a system to prevent this, but from another perspective I also can conceive that such a system might effect GM's bottom line negatively. If having engineers cut corners on their own (likely with the encouragement of management) saves money, incompetent upper managers might pad their bonuses with these little cut corners(an out of spec switch here, a faulty connection there). Normally this just means small problems for consumers down the line, this time it just ended up killing people. So who gets blamed? The guy at the bottom? I'm not buying it.