(10-05-2020, 02:48 AM)tonyo date Wrote:If Andrews had gone (like many suggested) when it went pear-shaped, I have no doubt we would be royally f***ed by now.Yes, it's a huge assumption that things will or won't be better, which is why I've argued for the devil you know.
Same applies to the changing of the security firms, that is more about punishing them than it is about making the situation better.
You could easily argue it's even making things worse, because a lot of the experienced gain from mistakes is removed when you install a fresh crew, the departing contract holders have no obligation to share the acquired knowledge! This is often seen in industry, when wages get too high the management or board do a slash and burn of staff and wages, replacing high cost embedded knowledge and experience with low cost learners working off the documentation, the assumption being each time you go through this process the learning phase gets smaller due to the retained knowledge. But it is a big if, and in my experience it is a 50/50 proposition with usually the biggest winners being some executive or board member getting a bonus for reducing costs, with very little benefit to the organisation.
I think the very best solution is to lock in all the gained experience and knowledge with an increased level of over-sight and governance.
Throwing the baby out with the bath-water just gives the people making the errors an easy way out, they may even be hoping that is what happens to them rather than being held accountable!
If mum growls at the child for spilling the cocoa powder, then cleans it up for them after the child walks away red-faced, the child never learns a lesson in the same way they would do if they had to stay and clean up their own mess! They always have to be made to fix up their mess, at least make an attempt even if they do a sub-standard job, because the result can always be touched up later.
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"