Revisiting the Aviation Safety vs. Networking discussion
nanog-post at rsuc.gweep.net
Fri Dec 25 11:09:54 CST 2009
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 01:09:26PM -0500, Randy Bush wrote:
> > I _do_ create action plans and _do_ quarterback each step and _do_
> > slap down any attempt to deviate.
> imagine a network engineering culture where the concept of 'attempt to
> deviate' just does not occur.
Whimsical deviations don't belong in the maint execution, they belong
in the brainstorming and design. Gather more points of view during
the peer review of the specification of work. In my experience, good
engineering makes for bad drama (and conversely if it is a "dramatic
save" then you have a bad engineer and likely a cowboy). Have a plan
that executes in stages, tests at checkpoints where partial completion
is possible, and a fallback for each step. A great way to train up
junior people, document as you go, expose flaws and lines of future
investigation, and if things go south you escalte to those who can
judge *reasonable* new directions.
To me, that kind of change management for non-automatable work is a
descendent of resonable group work. If you have project-oriented
autonomous teams that stick to the guideposts of "your standards" and
"minimal disruptions/maximal uptime" then good work will emerge. As
for automation, that enables your expensive hmans to do more smart
things so should always be incorporated in processes and be something
people move toward, IMO.
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
More information about the NANOG