[121921] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Mitigating human error in the SP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave CROCKER)
Mon Feb 1 21:59:10 2010
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:58:30 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
To: Chadwick Sorrell <mirotrem@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e7667f301002011821ifcc5be5pf1017cb30b7ea6dc@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2/1/2010 6:21 PM, Chadwick Sorrell wrote:
> Any other comments on the subject would be appreciated, we would like
> to come to our next meeting armed and dangerous.
If upper management believes humans can be required to make no errors, ask
whether they have achieved that ideal for themselves. If they say yes, start a
recorder and ask them how. When they get done, ask them why they think the
solution that worked for them will scale to a broader population. (Don't worry,
you won't get to the point of needing the recorder.)
Otherwise, as Suresh notes, the only way to eliminate human error completely is
to eliminate the presence of humans in the activity.
For those processes retaining human involvement, procedures and interfaces can
be designed to minimize human error. Well-established design specialty. Human
factors. Usability. Etc. Typically can be quite effective. Worthy using.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
