There must be a middle ground here- the paradox is that Google, Apple, etc have this ability to generate user friendly software and hardware at scale. But they aren't considered "battle proven". The expensive proprietary systems that are used instead tend to be hard to use and brittle, so what's the middle ground?
Read https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/146074-boeing-inte...
And then this from the doc: "The investigation continues to determine what manufacturing documents were used to authorize the opening and closing of the left MED plug during the rivet rework."
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24410269/report_dca24...
Consequently, you have a system of record that a major party to work doesn't have access to.
As we've all seen, this leads to "actual coordination" being instead done in a system all involved parties do have access to (SAT).
Which inevitably leads to a desync between CMES (SOR by fiat) and SAT (SOR in practice).
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-p....
I mean, there is already a ton of documentation and process surrounding the construction of an airplane. Adding more process doesn't safety make. Having a safety culture without the fear of retaliation, on the other hand, makes a world of difference.
I don't know if this should be considered "adding more process" because it has been standard process for a very long time. All work done on an airplane is authorized, by someone, and after completion is recorded, by someone. Discrepancies and deviations from this standard operating procedure are a big deal.