Skip to main content

The relevance of Muphy's Law to problem management

Murphy’s Law states: "if anything can go wrong, it will." The first reported use of the term Murphy’s Law is in 1952 in a book by Anne Roe, quoting an unnamed physicist. The observation inherent in Murphy's Law, with which so many IT professionals have an affinity, has great relevance to the field of problem management. There is a close correlation between Murphy’s Law and Heinrich’s Incident Pyramid (described below). In complex technological systems as found in IT, it is inevitable that incidents will happen. Both "Murphy" and Heinrich point to the inevitability of an incident, one is an adage and the other a research but both have a similar conclusion. The means to combat "go wrong" lies in IT Safety. The terms of reference of IT Safety is to reduce the rate at which shit happens ("go wrong"). It is possible to reduce shit happening, from once a day to once a week, by using safer processes that result in the time period between near misses being larger. This improves safety in IT.
The Incident Pyramid originated in 1931 when H.W. Heinrich described it in his book, Industrial Accident Prevention: A Scientific Approach. The Incident pyramid proposes that for every 300 unsafe acts there are 29 minor injuries and one major injury. The Incident Pyramid is corroborating evidence for Murphy's Law, which was published 21 years later.

Besides the Incident Pyramid the book also illustrates Heinrich's theory of incident causation. Unsafe acts lead to minor injuries and, over time, to major injury. All incidents occur as a result of many factors or multiple causes. Root Cause Analysis based on this theory is used in incident investigations whereby the obvious physical circumstance of the incident is investigated to determine its cause, and what led to that, and so forth, until no further factors can be identified. To avoid highlighting functional inadequacies many organizations simply identify the cause of most incidents as human error, or failure to follow safety rules. This dishonesty is often labelled as scapegoating. This habit of blaming major incidents on humans damages IT Safety.
In 1969, the Insurance Company of North America conducted a subsequent study using more than 1.7 million incidents reported by nearly 300 companies in 21 industrial groups. That study revealed a similar pattern to Heinrich’s but with slight deviations in the ratios. For each serious injury, there were 10 minor injuries, 30 property-damage incidents and 600 near-miss incidents that resulted in no injury or property damage.
The incident pyramid from Dresser-Rand.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Madge Networks, the token-ring company, went titsup

There I was shooting the breeze with an old mate. The conversation turned to why Madge Networks which I wrote about here went titsup. My analysis is that Madge Networks had a solution and decided to go out and find a problem. They deferred to more incorrect strategic technology choices. The truth of the matter is that when something goes titsup, its not because of one reason only, but a myriad of them all contributing to the negative consequence. There are the immediate or visual ones, which are underpinned by intermediate ones and finally after digging right down, there are the root causes. There is never a singular root cause for anything but I'll present my opinion and encourage everyone else to chip in. All of them together are more likely the reason the company went titsup. As far as technology brainfarts go there is no better example than Kodak . They invented the digital camera that killed them. However, they were so focused on milking people in their leg

Flawed "ITIL aligned"​ Incident Management

Many "ITIL aligned" service desk tools have flawed incident management. The reason is that incidents are logged with a time association and some related fields to type in some gobbledygook. The expanded incident life cycle is not enforced and as a result trending and problem management is not possible. Here is a fictitious log of an incident at PFS, a financial services company, which uses CGTSD, an “ITIL-aligned” service desk tool. Here is the log of an incident record from this system: Monday, 12 August: 09:03am (Bob, the service desk guy): Alice (customer in retail banking) phoned in. Logged an issue. Unable to assist over the phone (there goes our FCR), will escalate to second line. 09:04am (Bob, the service desk guy): Escalate the incident to Charles in second line support. 09:05am (Charles, technical support): Open incident. 09:05am (Charles, technical support): Delayed incident by 1 day. Tuesday, 13 August: 10:11am (Charles, technical support): Phoned Alice.

Updated: Articles by Ron Bartels published on iot for all

  These are articles that I published during the course of the past year on one of the popular international Internet of Things publishing sites, iot for all .  These are articles that I published during the course of the past year on one of the popular international Internet of Things publishing sites, iot for all . Improving Data Center Reliability With IoT Reliability and availability are essential to data centers. IoT can enable better issue tracking and data collection, leading to greater stability. Doing the Work Right in Data Centers With Checklists Data centers are complex. Modern economies rely upon their continuous operation. IoT solutions paired with this data center checklist can help! IoT Optimi