|
Did it? For example, in a GM car, they kept replacing the computer. There was nothing wrong with the computer. But computer was replaced rather than first learn WHY failure was happening. Swapping was only temporarily cleaning a defective connector. Car would fail again later.
Same lessons are from Challenger. Management insisted that it was safe to launch because a shuttle safely launched one year previously. They ignored the near burn through of O rings in that one year previous flight. They did not want to know why. A perfect example of fixing things without first learning the whys. In that case, we should have called Challenger murder. Instead we destroyed the career of the engineer who told the truth to the Roger's commission. Instead too many insist they need not know why - if it appears to work.
In a third case, a GM shop foreman finally got tired of same GM model (Buick) with similar problems. So he broke open the computer. In each failure, the PC board was cracked in a corner. Regional rep then told him this is a known problem even though it was not in any service bulletin. Since the test facility was not informed of this problem, then vehicle computers tested OK and were shipped as repair parts. At GM, because reasons why were not important, then failure was acceptable.
Numerous examples that also explain why I see this so often with clone computer users. They get used to having failure as a norm. It is the difference between just swapping parts to fix something - curing symptoms - verses fixing something right the first time - learning why.
|