I think that's the point. It's not anybody's fault and it's not that anyone is doing anything wrong, it's just a problem we need to take into account and try to mitigate.
I agree with what you are saying, but I think that incorrectly attributing the problem to one actor instead of another has chances of:
1) making it more difficult to identify the problem
2) affecting the path taken towards resolving the problem for the worse
3) making the person whose problem it now is to resolve the problem that they grew into less willing to do so.
I think that everyone should honestly own their successes and failures because, quite frankly, there is enough blame to go around, and not enough people willing to take ownership of the failures that they were responsible for.
True, but they shouldn't be blamed for the outbreak if they are not responsible.
Assuming this outbreak is a serious matter and we need to identify the true reason, it doesn't help to scapegoat one party that may not be responsible.
"When you do your post-mortem, focus on actionable outcomes rather than placing blame. Because ultimately anyone can screw up at any time."
I disagree with this. You need to place some sort of blame and focus on actionable outcomes.
Anyone can make this mistake, but with important data, there are some people that really shouldn't be handling it and they need to know why, which is where the blame comes in. This is the only way to resolve the issue.
I agree but I think it's ok to acknowledge the proximate cause while remembering the ultimate cause. You can say it was caused by the welders without them being to blame for it. Imagine they weren't told about the explosives, it still would be the case they caused the blast but not really possible for them to be at fault.
The point of your post on which I disagree is the idea that we need to name a "culprit".
reply