1.2% Error rate not too bad?

Well, that depends.  If it’s your child’s math test, that’s great.  If it’s inaccurate or forged safety documents at a nuclear plant, maybe not so great.  Especially in Asia, following Fukushima. Fake parts certifications – I guess it’s a lot cheaper to say you have the certification than to actually get it. I was always suspicious of the hand-written signs saying “Brazilian Shrimp” in the wet markets in Hong Kong.

“South Korea Says It Indicted 100 Over Faked Nuclear Documents,” Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2013 A11 http://on.wsj.com/1c9EVIL (This was the tag generated by bitly.  Really.) Sort of like the pipeline inspection data at PG&E following the San Bruno explosion.  There have been 128 shutdowns of South Korea’s nuclear reactors due to faulty parts over the past decade.

I am struck by the term “prodromes,”  sometimes used in investigations conducted after a major crisis.  What were the indicators before the accident that management should have reacted to sooner? Three Mile Island was one of the early teaching cases for crisis management. Is 128 shutdowns due to faulty parts an indication that there’s a problem?

How do you react to failure information in your business?



Leave a comment

Filed under Content, Controls, Data quality, Information, Internal controls, Knowledge Management, Protect assets, Requirements, Third parties, Use, Value

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s