Good Timing for .COM Problems ?

Sun Jul 20 19:03:08 UTC 1997

At 02:16 PM 7/20/97 -0400, David Mercer wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Jul 1997, Paul Trotter wrote:
>Seems to me that NSI have shown that their training procedures don't work,

	That's not the problem.

	The problem is bad procedures, not the failure to follow them correctly.

	The procedures should have prevented the operator from installing the
update, absent serious overrides.  Since it is far, far more dangerous to
add a bad update than it is to delay the update, the procedures should have
prevented the update as soon as the update data failed any of its validity
tests.  To override preventative mechanisms should require the intervention
of senior operations staff.  In other words, besides requiring a positive
override, it should require additional staff who are not part of the
regular, daily activity.

	Merely issuing passive alarms that can be ignored is representative of
basic ignorance about well-understood operator human factors.

	I said well-understood.  That, of course, means that one must use
designers knowledgeable in such matters.

	NSI didn't.

	That's a management error, not an operator error. 

>I personally don't find their assurance that such duties will now be

	Indeed, you shouldn't.  It's more important to change the procedures than
it is to change the staff.

d/
--------------------
Internet Mail Consortium                               +1 408 246 8253
675 Spruce Dr.                                    fax: +1 408 249 6205
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA              info at imc.org , http://www.imc.org