I loved this complaint from Boeing against the whistleblower employee:
“John still needs to learn the art of F2F (‘face to face’) engagement to address and follow up on issues instead of using e-mail to express process violations.”
“John still needs to learn the art of F2F (‘face to face’) engagement to address and follow up on issues instead of using e-mail to express process violations.”
To the point where someone specifically asking for face to face - during a review of a flight critical system - will get eyebrows raised halfway to the outermost of Saturn's rings. Hell, if eyebrows aren't raised you should get serious gut trembles, aka what in the hell is going on here.
The fact someone put this in an official record . . a record that presumably other people looked at, and approved . . is . . honestly, I'm not sure what's going on here. The generous interpretation is that leadership doesn't have a good grip on what a flight critical system is, how it's classified, for whatever reason, so they feel like engineers are constantly overreacting. "They're always whining 'flight critical'! Wah wah wah flight critical this, flight critical that". The bad interpretation is that they know what it is, and they don't care. That might be where the specific adjective "criminal" comes into play.
[1] And I would assume in any other safety-critical industry
[2] I.e. refusal to enter durable record, i.e., signature, email, a ticketing system, a microphone you hid in your tie, etc. This is all specc'd to the wazoo, by the way . . for the suppliers, anyway. Here's the fun thing about Boeing and ISO: Boeing never certs to AS9100. Boeing (BCA specifically) never needs to pass a formal audit, because as far as the ISO/SAE steering is concerned, Boeing is AS9100. Boeing’s Alan Daniels headed both ISO9001 and AS9100 committees without ever working under a cert AS9100 system his entire life, or ever certifying Boeing in either. But they can fine their suppliers umptillion million dollars for using the wrong font on their AS9100-certified quality documents. Isn't that grand? Bonus: Boeing's prime seats at ISO and AS9100 lets them lean hard on the up and comers too cough SpaceX cough, to boot.
“XYZ still needs to learn the art of async (‘asynchronous’) communication to address and follow up on issues instead of using emphemeral F2F ('face to face') engagement to express process violations.”
Face to face, phone call, and video call are all not recorded, and so not discoverable.
do you have an example where this is the case? We're talking about internal company communications, right? Not customer facing quality assurance type recording.
What's at stake here is systematic and transparent recording of all video and audio conversation.
Does it exist? Does ms teams for example has an enterprise feature available to record and archive everything without the meeting organizer activating the recording explicitly?
Of course, we only know about this because their phone calls were recorded. If I recall correctly, none of the traders indicated that they were aware their calls were recorded.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-feb-04-fi-enron...
https://www.npr.org/2006/01/31/5180594/enron-trader-tapes-av...