No faults is bad news

In our technological world we strive to be error free. Everything should run as smoothly as clock work, with never an item out of place. When something breaks, the reaction is to mouth off and blame, levelling accusations of incompetence left, right and centre.
But an error free environment is not optimal. You probably think I have finally lost my marbles, but I am making the case that no faults is bad news.
The reason is that a techie who has had no faults or a limited exposure to faults, is not able to deal with the situation when the sh*t really hits the fan. If not exposed to faults, the individual will in most probability run around like a headless chicken and be unable to execute a workaround within an acceptable time period.
Yes, there is a Catch-22! Most companies do not want faults but without faults, techies do not gain experience to deal with major incidents. The answer is to have simulations and induced failures for training. A company needs a regular scheduled continuity testing where link and system failure is induced, the reaction measured and the appropriated counter-measures documented.
As an example, if you owned a BMW X6 and it malfunctioned in Harare, what would be the expected outcome? Alternative;y, if you owned a Volksie and the same happened there would be a totally different outcome, as there would be a larger population base in Harare able to fix a Volksie. In your company you need techies that are able to fix, so what are you doing to be able to achieve that goal?

Comments