Post mortem

People who understand technology realize there are many parts that make up our complex machines and systems we use. Look at a helicopter, for example and compare it to a large IT system. Both have many interconnected, single parts that, if they fail, the system can be crippled, unable to perform the mission at hand. System engineers, technicians, and the operators that use the equipment all have various levels of knowledge on how IT systems work. The question is, what level, or what training can give users and operators enough information to help diagnose problems?

As a general rule, ignoring some theoretical discussion, technical training can be defined as risk = complexity divided by training. As a formula, R =C/T, meaning the more training, the less risk. And the more complexity, the more exposed risk. Some engineers will argue that they can build in complexity and redundancy that minimizes risk. I’d argue that. The general tendency on many systems is to build IT that only has a “red warning light” type signal that works similar to a car warning engine light. Instead of having five different gauges, the output is summed to one red light. From operational point of view, this makes it easier for operators or technicians to be alerted that something is wrong, meaning they have less complexity, less objects to keep track of. There is a downside though. This makes it difficult to identify what exactly is causing the problem. As a manager of technology, you need to keep aware of dumbing-down your staff into just “red light watchers”.