Yes, I quite agree with you. At our organization we do brainstorm about what could potentially go wrong and we admit that humans are error prone for a whole variety of reasons. So we do try to have contingencies planned as well as procedures to catch gross errors. My management is very strict that we should present the benefits and drawbacks of all of our procedures, and consider what could go wrong. Sometimes this makes us slow to implement new systems, but they do tend to be quite reliable. But they have to be, because many people depend upon our services, including the dispatch of police and ambulances, as well as payrolls for public services.
On 10/23/07, Howard Brazee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 22 Oct 2007 14:12:07 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zahir Hemini) > wrote: > > >This is exactly why there are products like CA OPS/MVS and Automan and > >probably a few others. People sometimes are new to a procedure, they do > >accidentally make mistakes, and read and write instructions incorrectly. > > Which is the response to the message that compared operator errors > with blood tester errors. > > People do make mistakes. When the results of likely mistakes are too > expensive, procedures and tools need to be created to minimize the > impact of those mistakes. > > Lots of software design is like the design of sidewalks which have > lines scored on them to encourage the breaks into a predictable > direction. Don't deny that errors happen- handle them. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO > Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
